Jimmy The Clam wrote:

"Codifus" wrote in message
om...

I don't think this is a comparison between a phono pre-amp and
software. It's more like a comparison between a regular audio
stand-alone phono pre-amp verses the phono pre-amp inside the
TerreTec card.

You seem to have missed an important point - the phono preamp inside the
Terretec card 's interface box is not like most phono preamps. It lacks
equalization.

Hardware vs hardware.

Hardware versus hardware + software

In which case, the one that sounds better to you would win.

But of course, and if cost is no object, the dedicated hardware solution can
reasonably to win.

The Terra card phono input is simply
a phono pre-amp mated to its 24/96 AD stage.

Read the doc. They seem to be saying that the equalization is done inside
the PC.

I think there may have
been a bit of a compromise to add the phono pre-amp electronics onto
that card.

The major cause for any compromises would be simply cost.

If it was my choice, I would go with the separate pre-amp
and an Echo card.

Been there done that, it works. I have a Apt/Holman preamp and a
ConRad-Johnson preamp for he purpose. Just hook the main output of the
preamp to the line input of the sound card, adjust the volume control on the
preamp for no clipping with the loudest band on a trackability test record
and you are stylin'!

The purist in me likes that because Echo is a
company that conecentrates on just audio, and a separate phono
pre-amp will concentrate on being jsut one thing, a good phono pre
amp.

In my case the preamps were on hand. Mis-spent youth!

Compare that to the phono pre-amp built into the TerraTec card.

The approach they use could be surprisingly good. Low noise opamps are dirt
cheap. Parts like stereo volume controls with good channel tracking and
high-quality equalization components cost money. They reduced the hardware
load to just the opamps and a few other low cost parts.

The TerraTec card sounds like it wants to be everything for
everybody. Built in phono pre-amp, DTS sound, the works. Usually
that means compromise.

One word: price.

From what I can tell you have TWO options with the RIAA equalization
with the TerraTec card.
The onboard hardware solution that is inside the breakout box is not
really a consideration as I do think that would be inferior to a very
good phono preamp.

I think I posted an analysis of why that must be, and how much of a
compromise it will be.

But I don't find anywhere on the internet any information comparing a
software RIAA equalization with an equalization done by a good phono
preamp.

I'd put my money on the software.

With older hardware from a just a few years ago, I would
think that a software solution would be seriously lacking because of
the limited processing power available and the necessity of
off-loading every function possible onto hardware from the CPU for
performance reasons is, I think, behind us.

Agreed.

I don't really think
(from reading the reviews) that the DMX 6Fire tries to be that much
to too many people. True the Mia is pretty much a sound only device,
but the DMX 6Fire dumps a lot of traditional "gaming" functions and
seems to concentrate on just music but is also a much newer card.

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors, the Mia
has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with other audio
production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the 6Fire position it as a
consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most important
thing.

The preamps I have been considering in order of price are the:

The Bottle Head "Seduction" kit (the build it yourself option)
http://www.bottlehead.com/et/adobesp.../seduction.htm

Black Cube SE phono stage
http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/blcubee.html

EAR 834P PHONOBOX
http://www.ear-yoshino.com/productde...p?page=6&id=20

Or surf eBay for some classic gear like the Holman, that still sells for a
reasonable price. I paid about $75 for mine - the CJ came from a private
auction some years ago for even less but I don't think that could be
duplicated today.

Also:

http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/ca...h ono+Preamps

http://www.kabusa.com/index_pp.htm

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors, the
Mia
has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with other audio
production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the 6Fire position it as
a
consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most important
thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option. I already have a SC Turtle Beach
in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I could probably just use
that (and skip the sound card option entirely), but I know I can do better.
I also know I can spend $20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in
this lifetime.
What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to spend
the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then again, I wont
want to save $100 but radically compromise the end result. There is a
difference between a good value and poor results because someone is
unreasonably cheap.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or benchmarking can I
do to see what this card is really doing to/with the sound? That type of
objective benchmarking would really put my mind at ease.
I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what I'm eventually going to
do is burn CDs and play them in my less than sonically perfect car.
How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps sounds just great! I think
128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does not usually justify the file size
they generate.

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors, the
Mia
has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with other audio
production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the 6Fire position it as
a
consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most important
thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option. I already have a SC Turtle Beach
in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I could probably just use
that (and skip the sound card option entirely), but I know I can do better.
I also know I can spend $20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in
this lifetime.
What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to spend
the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then again, I wont
want to save $100 but radically compromise the end result. There is a
difference between a good value and poor results because someone is
unreasonably cheap.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or benchmarking can I
do to see what this card is really doing to/with the sound? That type of
objective benchmarking would really put my mind at ease.
I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what I'm eventually going to
do is burn CDs and play them in my less than sonically perfect car.
How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps sounds just great! I think
128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does not usually justify the file size
they generate.

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors, the
Mia
has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with other audio
production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the 6Fire position it as
a
consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most important
thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option. I already have a SC Turtle Beach
in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I could probably just use
that (and skip the sound card option entirely), but I know I can do better.
I also know I can spend $20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in
this lifetime.
What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to spend
the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then again, I wont
want to save $100 but radically compromise the end result. There is a
difference between a good value and poor results because someone is
unreasonably cheap.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or benchmarking can I
do to see what this card is really doing to/with the sound? That type of
objective benchmarking would really put my mind at ease.
I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what I'm eventually going to
do is burn CDs and play them in my less than sonically perfect car.
How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps sounds just great! I think
128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does not usually justify the file size
they generate.

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors, the
Mia
has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with other audio
production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the 6Fire position it as
a
consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most important
thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option. I already have a SC Turtle Beach
in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I could probably just use
that (and skip the sound card option entirely), but I know I can do better.
I also know I can spend $20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in
this lifetime.
What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to spend
the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then again, I wont
want to save $100 but radically compromise the end result. There is a
difference between a good value and poor results because someone is
unreasonably cheap.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or benchmarking can I
do to see what this card is really doing to/with the sound? That type of
objective benchmarking would really put my mind at ease.
I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what I'm eventually going to
do is burn CDs and play them in my less than sonically perfect car.
How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps sounds just great! I think
128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does not usually justify the file size
they generate.

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC) should be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca. $100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC) should be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca. $100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC) should be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca. $100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC) should be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca. $100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Thanks Arny!
This is getting interesting. I just received a reply back from Terratec and
in broken English they "would prefer the solution with the DMX 6Fire".
I bet they would! :-)

Sticking with The SC would be cheap, but maybe not the best solution. The
other reason I wanted another sound card was so I could use it in my server
that I could turn into a music processor. It does nothing else these days.

I can have the DMX 6Fire shipped to me for $199.99. I wont be able to get
the Rega turntable for another month.
I listened to the test files and I can't tell the difference until the very
end, so I guess I'm pretty tone deaf.




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC) should
be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca.
$100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA
network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator
from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were
the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Thanks Arny!
This is getting interesting. I just received a reply back from Terratec and
in broken English they "would prefer the solution with the DMX 6Fire".
I bet they would! :-)

Sticking with The SC would be cheap, but maybe not the best solution. The
other reason I wanted another sound card was so I could use it in my server
that I could turn into a music processor. It does nothing else these days.

I can have the DMX 6Fire shipped to me for $199.99. I wont be able to get
the Rega turntable for another month.
I listened to the test files and I can't tell the difference until the very
end, so I guess I'm pretty tone deaf.




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC) should
be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca.
$100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA
network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator
from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were
the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Thanks Arny!
This is getting interesting. I just received a reply back from Terratec and
in broken English they "would prefer the solution with the DMX 6Fire".
I bet they would! :-)

Sticking with The SC would be cheap, but maybe not the best solution. The
other reason I wanted another sound card was so I could use it in my server
that I could turn into a music processor. It does nothing else these days.

I can have the DMX 6Fire shipped to me for $199.99. I wont be able to get
the Rega turntable for another month.
I listened to the test files and I can't tell the difference until the very
end, so I guess I'm pretty tone deaf.




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC) should
be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca.
$100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA
network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator
from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were
the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Thanks Arny!
This is getting interesting. I just received a reply back from Terratec and
in broken English they "would prefer the solution with the DMX 6Fire".
I bet they would! :-)

Sticking with The SC would be cheap, but maybe not the best solution. The
other reason I wanted another sound card was so I could use it in my server
that I could turn into a music processor. It does nothing else these days.

I can have the DMX 6Fire shipped to me for $199.99. I wont be able to get
the Rega turntable for another month.
I listened to the test files and I can't tell the difference until the very
end, so I guess I'm pretty tone deaf.




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC) should
be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca.
$100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA
network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator
from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were
the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software RIAA
equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the DMX6 is
when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem with the
DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency response
is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2 - 3 dB and
that's all...


With best regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen

Christoph Wilms

TerraTec Electronic GmbH
Herrenpfad 38
D 41334 Nettetal



"Jimmy The Clam" wrote in message
...
Thanks Arny!
This is getting interesting. I just received a reply back from Terratec
and
in broken English they "would prefer the solution with the DMX 6Fire".
I bet they would! :-)

Sticking with The SC would be cheap, but maybe not the best solution. The
other reason I wanted another sound card was so I could use it in my
server
that I could turn into a music processor. It does nothing else these days.

I can have the DMX 6Fire shipped to me for $199.99. I wont be able to get
the Rega turntable for another month.
I listened to the test files and I can't tell the difference until the
very
end, so I guess I'm pretty tone deaf.




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC)
should
be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca.
$100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your
TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA
network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator
from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were
the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate
its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software RIAA
equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the DMX6 is
when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem with the
DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency response
is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2 - 3 dB and
that's all...


With best regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen

Christoph Wilms

TerraTec Electronic GmbH
Herrenpfad 38
D 41334 Nettetal



"Jimmy The Clam" wrote in message
...
Thanks Arny!
This is getting interesting. I just received a reply back from Terratec
and
in broken English they "would prefer the solution with the DMX 6Fire".
I bet they would! :-)

Sticking with The SC would be cheap, but maybe not the best solution. The
other reason I wanted another sound card was so I could use it in my
server
that I could turn into a music processor. It does nothing else these days.

I can have the DMX 6Fire shipped to me for $199.99. I wont be able to get
the Rega turntable for another month.
I listened to the test files and I can't tell the difference until the
very
end, so I guess I'm pretty tone deaf.




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC)
should
be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca.
$100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your
TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA
network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator
from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were
the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate
its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software RIAA
equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the DMX6 is
when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem with the
DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency response
is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2 - 3 dB and
that's all...


With best regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen

Christoph Wilms

TerraTec Electronic GmbH
Herrenpfad 38
D 41334 Nettetal



"Jimmy The Clam" wrote in message
...
Thanks Arny!
This is getting interesting. I just received a reply back from Terratec
and
in broken English they "would prefer the solution with the DMX 6Fire".
I bet they would! :-)

Sticking with The SC would be cheap, but maybe not the best solution. The
other reason I wanted another sound card was so I could use it in my
server
that I could turn into a music processor. It does nothing else these days.

I can have the DMX 6Fire shipped to me for $199.99. I wont be able to get
the Rega turntable for another month.
I listened to the test files and I can't tell the difference until the
very
end, so I guess I'm pretty tone deaf.




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC)
should
be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca.
$100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your
TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA
network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator
from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were
the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate
its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software RIAA
equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the DMX6 is
when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem with the
DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency response
is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2 - 3 dB and
that's all...


With best regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen

Christoph Wilms

TerraTec Electronic GmbH
Herrenpfad 38
D 41334 Nettetal



"Jimmy The Clam" wrote in message
...
Thanks Arny!
This is getting interesting. I just received a reply back from Terratec
and
in broken English they "would prefer the solution with the DMX 6Fire".
I bet they would! :-)

Sticking with The SC would be cheap, but maybe not the best solution. The
other reason I wanted another sound card was so I could use it in my
server
that I could turn into a music processor. It does nothing else these days.

I can have the DMX 6Fire shipped to me for $199.99. I wont be able to get
the Rega turntable for another month.
I listened to the test files and I can't tell the difference until the
very
end, so I guess I'm pretty tone deaf.




"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

The DMX 6Fire shows up on eCost at $222.04. The Echo Mia shows up at
$199.95 . You should remember that despite the fancy TRS connectors,
the Mia has unbalanced I/O. The Mia would be a better match with
other audio production equipment, I think. The RCA jacks on the
6Fire position it as a consumer audio device.

You are right, this is a contest between a good traditional hardware
solution as represented by a decent phono-preamp (typically in the
$600 to $1,200 range) and what is now possible in software.

The DMX 6Fire wins on the grounds of price, if that is the most
important thing.

Price is VERY important, but it's not everything. I don't want to hear
garbage, even if it is the cheapest option.

Few do. I think the DMX6Fire has the potential to be far better than
garbage!

I already have a SC
Turtle Beach in my computer so if I wanted to go REALLY cheap, I
could probably just use that (and skip the sound card option
entirely), but I know I can do better.

Frankly, for digitizing vinyl, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz (TBSC)
should
be
well into overkill.

I also know I can spend
$20,000 on this project, but that won't happen in this lifetime.

Sane!

What I really want is the maximum bang-per-buck ratio. If I have to
spend the money I will, but this is not the focus of my life. Then
again, I wont want to save $100 but radically compromise the end
result. There is a difference between a good value and poor results
because someone is unreasonably cheap.

If price performance is an issue, you might do best with one of the ca.
$100
phono preamp options we've discussed, feeding the line inputs on your
TBSC
would be a good option.

If I just buy the DMX 6Fire and try it out, what tests or
benchmarking can I do to see what this card is really doing to/with
the sound?

One classic means for testing a phono input involves a inverse-RIAA
network,
like this one:

http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/riaa.pdf

That type of objective benchmarking would really put my
mind at ease. I think I may just possibly chasing insanity if what
I'm eventually going to do is burn CDs and play them in my less than
sonically perfect car.

The LPs themselves are a major limit to sonic quality.

How good are my ears you ask? I think 192kbps
sounds just great! I think 128kbps is too low, but I think 320 does
not usually justify the file size they generate.

You might want to check out how sensitive your ears are to technical
imperfections in audio by download files and a Double Blind Comparator
from
www.pcabx.com .

Does anything I say change your mind Arny?

If I understand you correctly, and maintaining a reasonable expense were
the
goal, I'd be prone to leverage off the existing TBSC. You can evaluate
its
coloration by listening to files from
http://www.pcab.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software
RIAA equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the
DMX6 is when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem
with the DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that
true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency
response is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2
- 3 dB and that's all...

If you go back to this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=57...%40comcast.com

My concern was with dynamic range, not frequency response.

To clarify, nearly ideal frequency would be a major advantage of their
approach.

I was concerned about dynamic range at eirth very low or very high
frequencies.

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software
RIAA equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the
DMX6 is when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem
with the DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that
true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency
response is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2
- 3 dB and that's all...

If you go back to this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=57...%40comcast.com

My concern was with dynamic range, not frequency response.

To clarify, nearly ideal frequency would be a major advantage of their
approach.

I was concerned about dynamic range at eirth very low or very high
frequencies.

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software
RIAA equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the
DMX6 is when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem
with the DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that
true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency
response is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2
- 3 dB and that's all...

If you go back to this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=57...%40comcast.com

My concern was with dynamic range, not frequency response.

To clarify, nearly ideal frequency would be a major advantage of their
approach.

I was concerned about dynamic range at eirth very low or very high
frequencies.

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software
RIAA equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the
DMX6 is when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem
with the DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that
true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency
response is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2
- 3 dB and that's all...

If you go back to this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=57...%40comcast.com

My concern was with dynamic range, not frequency response.

To clarify, nearly ideal frequency would be a major advantage of their
approach.

I was concerned about dynamic range at eirth very low or very high
frequencies.

That was a responce to TonyP's statement.
"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of hundred
hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software
RIAA equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the
DMX6 is when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem
with the DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that
true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency
response is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2
- 3 dB and that's all...

If you go back to this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=57...%40comcast.com

My concern was with dynamic range, not frequency response.

To clarify, nearly ideal frequency would be a major advantage of their
approach.

I was concerned about dynamic range at eirth very low or very high
frequencies.

That was a responce to TonyP's statement.
"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of hundred
hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software
RIAA equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the
DMX6 is when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem
with the DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that
true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency
response is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2
- 3 dB and that's all...

If you go back to this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=57...%40comcast.com

My concern was with dynamic range, not frequency response.

To clarify, nearly ideal frequency would be a major advantage of their
approach.

I was concerned about dynamic range at eirth very low or very high
frequencies.

That was a responce to TonyP's statement.
"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of hundred
hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software
RIAA equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the
DMX6 is when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem
with the DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that
true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency
response is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2
- 3 dB and that's all...

If you go back to this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=57...%40comcast.com

My concern was with dynamic range, not frequency response.

To clarify, nearly ideal frequency would be a major advantage of their
approach.

I was concerned about dynamic range at eirth very low or very high
frequencies.

That was a responce to TonyP's statement.
"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of hundred
hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
OK, this is what TerraTec has to say about the subject of software
RIAA equilization via E-Mail.

Q: I am curious as to how accurate the RIAA equalization done by the
DMX6 is when compared against a very good ($500 - $1,000) PPA.
I was told that the frequencies below 100Hz were a serious problem
with the DMX6 card while doing a Vinyl to Digital conversion. Is that
true?

A: I don't know where you have this information from but frequency
response is nearly linear. There is a little damping at 20 Hz from 2
- 3 dB and that's all...

If you go back to this post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=57...%40comcast.com

My concern was with dynamic range, not frequency response.

To clarify, nearly ideal frequency would be a major advantage of their
approach.

I was concerned about dynamic range at eirth very low or very high
frequencies.

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
That was a responce to TonyP's statement.

"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
hundred hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

I think the inferiority expected would relate to dynamic range, not
frequency response.

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Ask them how it is at the highest and lowest frequency.

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.

I hit on the idea of doing vinyl transcriptions with software RIAA eq a
number of years ago as did a number of other people, but someone else
brought up the dynamic range issue. Their concern did have some validity.
However, with the improved performance of the better sound cards, it's less
of a concern. The remaining question is "How much less of a concern"?

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
That was a responce to TonyP's statement.

"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
hundred hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

I think the inferiority expected would relate to dynamic range, not
frequency response.

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Ask them how it is at the highest and lowest frequency.

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.

I hit on the idea of doing vinyl transcriptions with software RIAA eq a
number of years ago as did a number of other people, but someone else
brought up the dynamic range issue. Their concern did have some validity.
However, with the improved performance of the better sound cards, it's less
of a concern. The remaining question is "How much less of a concern"?

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
That was a responce to TonyP's statement.

"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
hundred hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

I think the inferiority expected would relate to dynamic range, not
frequency response.

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Ask them how it is at the highest and lowest frequency.

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.

I hit on the idea of doing vinyl transcriptions with software RIAA eq a
number of years ago as did a number of other people, but someone else
brought up the dynamic range issue. Their concern did have some validity.
However, with the improved performance of the better sound cards, it's less
of a concern. The remaining question is "How much less of a concern"?

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
That was a responce to TonyP's statement.

"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
hundred hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

I think the inferiority expected would relate to dynamic range, not
frequency response.

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Ask them how it is at the highest and lowest frequency.

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.

I hit on the idea of doing vinyl transcriptions with software RIAA eq a
number of years ago as did a number of other people, but someone else
brought up the dynamic range issue. Their concern did have some validity.
However, with the improved performance of the better sound cards, it's less
of a concern. The remaining question is "How much less of a concern"?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
That was a responce to TonyP's statement.

"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
hundred hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

I think the inferiority expected would relate to dynamic range, not
frequency response.

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Ask them how it is at the highest and lowest frequency.

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.

I hit on the idea of doing vinyl transcriptions with software RIAA eq a
number of years ago as did a number of other people, but someone else
brought up the dynamic range issue. Their concern did have some validity.
However, with the improved performance of the better sound cards, it's less
of a concern. The remaining question is "How much less of a concern"?
I'm just tacking onto the end of this response because I'm using the
google groups web interface to the newsgroups. It's kindof clunky
giving me quite a challenge to see a thread through. I was using
Thunderbird, but my ISP's newsserver must be in th habit of expiring
articles in the blink of an eye, so I miss even more discussions with
the better interface!

Anyhow, to touch on the topics mentioned he Arny Krueger, you'r
right, I missed the part of the phono input on the Terrate card being
non-equalized. So then that would reduce the comparison to being a
software issue, you could use either card then.

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl. Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic
headroom, it is more able to capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording. The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
recording, 20 playing, if memeory serves) to make the 16 bits more
accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit. Comparing the same vinyl
recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
frequency response is flatter, too. The cruz tends to be a bit bass
light and less dynamic. Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
less because the recording level is not always at 0 db. With the MIA,
you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the recording is
below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
range. Like at -10 db you'll have 20 bits, even better than the Cruz
at its very very best. Now, some of you will say that the dynamic
range of vinyl is below even a 16 bit card, but the ability to capture
it all is much easier in a 24 bit card than in a 16 bit one.

Anyhow, I don't mean to preach, but for recording vinyl, 24 bits
minimum, I say

Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
vote still goes to the MIA



CD

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
That was a responce to TonyP's statement.

"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
hundred hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

I think the inferiority expected would relate to dynamic range, not
frequency response.

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Ask them how it is at the highest and lowest frequency.

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.

I hit on the idea of doing vinyl transcriptions with software RIAA eq a
number of years ago as did a number of other people, but someone else
brought up the dynamic range issue. Their concern did have some validity.
However, with the improved performance of the better sound cards, it's less
of a concern. The remaining question is "How much less of a concern"?
I'm just tacking onto the end of this response because I'm using the
google groups web interface to the newsgroups. It's kindof clunky
giving me quite a challenge to see a thread through. I was using
Thunderbird, but my ISP's newsserver must be in th habit of expiring
articles in the blink of an eye, so I miss even more discussions with
the better interface!

Anyhow, to touch on the topics mentioned he Arny Krueger, you'r
right, I missed the part of the phono input on the Terrate card being
non-equalized. So then that would reduce the comparison to being a
software issue, you could use either card then.

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl. Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic
headroom, it is more able to capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording. The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
recording, 20 playing, if memeory serves) to make the 16 bits more
accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit. Comparing the same vinyl
recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
frequency response is flatter, too. The cruz tends to be a bit bass
light and less dynamic. Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
less because the recording level is not always at 0 db. With the MIA,
you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the recording is
below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
range. Like at -10 db you'll have 20 bits, even better than the Cruz
at its very very best. Now, some of you will say that the dynamic
range of vinyl is below even a 16 bit card, but the ability to capture
it all is much easier in a 24 bit card than in a 16 bit one.

Anyhow, I don't mean to preach, but for recording vinyl, 24 bits
minimum, I say

Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
vote still goes to the MIA



CD

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
That was a responce to TonyP's statement.

"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
hundred hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

I think the inferiority expected would relate to dynamic range, not
frequency response.

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Ask them how it is at the highest and lowest frequency.

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.

I hit on the idea of doing vinyl transcriptions with software RIAA eq a
number of years ago as did a number of other people, but someone else
brought up the dynamic range issue. Their concern did have some validity.
However, with the improved performance of the better sound cards, it's less
of a concern. The remaining question is "How much less of a concern"?
I'm just tacking onto the end of this response because I'm using the
google groups web interface to the newsgroups. It's kindof clunky
giving me quite a challenge to see a thread through. I was using
Thunderbird, but my ISP's newsserver must be in th habit of expiring
articles in the blink of an eye, so I miss even more discussions with
the better interface!

Anyhow, to touch on the topics mentioned he Arny Krueger, you'r
right, I missed the part of the phono input on the Terrate card being
non-equalized. So then that would reduce the comparison to being a
software issue, you could use either card then.

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl. Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic
headroom, it is more able to capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording. The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
recording, 20 playing, if memeory serves) to make the 16 bits more
accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit. Comparing the same vinyl
recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
frequency response is flatter, too. The cruz tends to be a bit bass
light and less dynamic. Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
less because the recording level is not always at 0 db. With the MIA,
you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the recording is
below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
range. Like at -10 db you'll have 20 bits, even better than the Cruz
at its very very best. Now, some of you will say that the dynamic
range of vinyl is below even a 16 bit card, but the ability to capture
it all is much easier in a 24 bit card than in a 16 bit one.

Anyhow, I don't mean to preach, but for recording vinyl, 24 bits
minimum, I say

Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
vote still goes to the MIA



CD

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
That was a responce to TonyP's statement.

"I think you will find the software approach fine above a couple of
hundred hertz, but seriously inferior below 100 Hz."

I think the inferiority expected would relate to dynamic range, not
frequency response.

What specific question should I ask them about dynamic range?

Ask them how it is at the highest and lowest frequency.

Thanks again for paying attention to my thread Arny.

I hit on the idea of doing vinyl transcriptions with software RIAA eq a
number of years ago as did a number of other people, but someone else
brought up the dynamic range issue. Their concern did have some validity.
However, with the improved performance of the better sound cards, it's less
of a concern. The remaining question is "How much less of a concern"?
I'm just tacking onto the end of this response because I'm using the
google groups web interface to the newsgroups. It's kindof clunky
giving me quite a challenge to see a thread through. I was using
Thunderbird, but my ISP's newsserver must be in th habit of expiring
articles in the blink of an eye, so I miss even more discussions with
the better interface!

Anyhow, to touch on the topics mentioned he Arny Krueger, you'r
right, I missed the part of the phono input on the Terrate card being
non-equalized. So then that would reduce the comparison to being a
software issue, you could use either card then.

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl. Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic
headroom, it is more able to capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording. The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
recording, 20 playing, if memeory serves) to make the 16 bits more
accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit. Comparing the same vinyl
recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
frequency response is flatter, too. The cruz tends to be a bit bass
light and less dynamic. Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
less because the recording level is not always at 0 db. With the MIA,
you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the recording is
below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
range. Like at -10 db you'll have 20 bits, even better than the Cruz
at its very very best. Now, some of you will say that the dynamic
range of vinyl is below even a 16 bit card, but the ability to capture
it all is much easier in a 24 bit card than in a 16 bit one.

Anyhow, I don't mean to preach, but for recording vinyl, 24 bits
minimum, I say

Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
vote still goes to the MIA



CD

Codifus wrote:

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl.

Been there, done that I think it doesn't. I know it doesn't if you are
reasonably careful with level setting. Read on!

Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic headroom, it is more able to
capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Echo Mia doesn't have 24 bits worth of
dynamic range. It actually has about 17 bits worth of dynamic range with 44
KHz sampling, worse at 96 KHz.

In contrast the TBSC has about 14 bits worth of dynamic range.

However, vinyl recordings only have about 12 bits worth of dynamic range.
The Mia buys you more margin when it comes to setting levels for recording.
However, with reasonable care, the TBSC is still an overkill solution for
digitizing vinyl.

Analog recordings don't have the corner on dynamics, particularly when we
are talking about analog tape or analog vinyl.

The best commercial recordings made have about 13 bits worth of dynamic
range no matter which format they are distributed in.

The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
recording, 20 playing, if memory serves) to make the 16 bits more
accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit.

16 bits gives you about 96 dB dynamic range, This is no less than 20 dB more
dynamic range than any commercial recording ever made has, whether LP,
analog tape, or CD. Vinyl recordings are hard pressed to demonstrate more
than about 65 dB worth of dynamic range. Often they only have more like 50
dB dynamic range.

Comparing the same vinyl
recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
frequency response is flatter, too.

Either card has the capability to accurately reproduce the dynamics and
timbre of a LP.

The Mia has a tad better frequency response, but anybody who cares to listen
properly (i.e., a level-matched, time-synchronized, blind listening test)
can be reasonably be expected to report back that the two sound cards sound
alike with music, provide the levels are optimized for each card.

The Mia, being designed for audio production, has been optimized for higher
signal levels. I think that it makes sense to prefer the Mia for digitizing
vinyl, but we need not criticize the TBSC to explain that preference.

The cruz tends to be a bit bass light and less dynamic.

Only if you don't match it properly to the application.

Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
less because the recording level is not always at 0 db.

Wrong and wrong. No way does the TBSC have 16 bits worth of dynamic range.
But, when you;'re recording vinyl, you don't have 16 bits worth of dynamic
range either. Vinyl can't do 96 dB dynamic range. Even with the stylus off
the record, you're hard pressed to have 96 dB dynamic range.

With the MIA, you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the
recording is
below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
range.

Wrong, no way does the Mia or any other commercial audio interface current
available have 24 bit resolution. A SOTA audio interface has more like 20-22
bits resolution, unwieghted, 20 KHz bandwidth. Remember, dynamic range and
resolution are two different ways to express the same concept and the same
physical event.


Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
vote still goes to the MIA

I agree that Echo is audio production oriented, and that Terrratec is
consumer oriented. They are both about audio, but different market segments
within audio. Creative is about audio, too but historically it has been more
oriented towards the gaming segment of consumer audio. Creative has been
going through some changes because the market is changing. They're doing a
big business with digital audio players, and that's a music listener's
market. Audio interfaces are natural adjuncts to digital audio players.

Technological progress relates as well. 5 years ago the dirt-cheap audio
interfaces built into motherboards were junk if you were a critical
listener. Today, the better on-board audio interfaces are climbing into the
sound quality range of a TBSC. I use one to digitize cassettes, and I have
no apologies for that.

Codifus wrote:

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl.

Been there, done that I think it doesn't. I know it doesn't if you are
reasonably careful with level setting. Read on!

Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic headroom, it is more able to
capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Echo Mia doesn't have 24 bits worth of
dynamic range. It actually has about 17 bits worth of dynamic range with 44
KHz sampling, worse at 96 KHz.

In contrast the TBSC has about 14 bits worth of dynamic range.

However, vinyl recordings only have about 12 bits worth of dynamic range.
The Mia buys you more margin when it comes to setting levels for recording.
However, with reasonable care, the TBSC is still an overkill solution for
digitizing vinyl.

Analog recordings don't have the corner on dynamics, particularly when we
are talking about analog tape or analog vinyl.

The best commercial recordings made have about 13 bits worth of dynamic
range no matter which format they are distributed in.

The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
recording, 20 playing, if memory serves) to make the 16 bits more
accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit.

16 bits gives you about 96 dB dynamic range, This is no less than 20 dB more
dynamic range than any commercial recording ever made has, whether LP,
analog tape, or CD. Vinyl recordings are hard pressed to demonstrate more
than about 65 dB worth of dynamic range. Often they only have more like 50
dB dynamic range.

Comparing the same vinyl
recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
frequency response is flatter, too.

Either card has the capability to accurately reproduce the dynamics and
timbre of a LP.

The Mia has a tad better frequency response, but anybody who cares to listen
properly (i.e., a level-matched, time-synchronized, blind listening test)
can be reasonably be expected to report back that the two sound cards sound
alike with music, provide the levels are optimized for each card.

The Mia, being designed for audio production, has been optimized for higher
signal levels. I think that it makes sense to prefer the Mia for digitizing
vinyl, but we need not criticize the TBSC to explain that preference.

The cruz tends to be a bit bass light and less dynamic.

Only if you don't match it properly to the application.

Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
less because the recording level is not always at 0 db.

Wrong and wrong. No way does the TBSC have 16 bits worth of dynamic range.
But, when you;'re recording vinyl, you don't have 16 bits worth of dynamic
range either. Vinyl can't do 96 dB dynamic range. Even with the stylus off
the record, you're hard pressed to have 96 dB dynamic range.

With the MIA, you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the
recording is
below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
range.

Wrong, no way does the Mia or any other commercial audio interface current
available have 24 bit resolution. A SOTA audio interface has more like 20-22
bits resolution, unwieghted, 20 KHz bandwidth. Remember, dynamic range and
resolution are two different ways to express the same concept and the same
physical event.


Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
vote still goes to the MIA

I agree that Echo is audio production oriented, and that Terrratec is
consumer oriented. They are both about audio, but different market segments
within audio. Creative is about audio, too but historically it has been more
oriented towards the gaming segment of consumer audio. Creative has been
going through some changes because the market is changing. They're doing a
big business with digital audio players, and that's a music listener's
market. Audio interfaces are natural adjuncts to digital audio players.

Technological progress relates as well. 5 years ago the dirt-cheap audio
interfaces built into motherboards were junk if you were a critical
listener. Today, the better on-board audio interfaces are climbing into the
sound quality range of a TBSC. I use one to digitize cassettes, and I have
no apologies for that.

Codifus wrote:

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl.

Been there, done that I think it doesn't. I know it doesn't if you are
reasonably careful with level setting. Read on!

Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic headroom, it is more able to
capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Echo Mia doesn't have 24 bits worth of
dynamic range. It actually has about 17 bits worth of dynamic range with 44
KHz sampling, worse at 96 KHz.

In contrast the TBSC has about 14 bits worth of dynamic range.

However, vinyl recordings only have about 12 bits worth of dynamic range.
The Mia buys you more margin when it comes to setting levels for recording.
However, with reasonable care, the TBSC is still an overkill solution for
digitizing vinyl.

Analog recordings don't have the corner on dynamics, particularly when we
are talking about analog tape or analog vinyl.

The best commercial recordings made have about 13 bits worth of dynamic
range no matter which format they are distributed in.

The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
recording, 20 playing, if memory serves) to make the 16 bits more
accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit.

16 bits gives you about 96 dB dynamic range, This is no less than 20 dB more
dynamic range than any commercial recording ever made has, whether LP,
analog tape, or CD. Vinyl recordings are hard pressed to demonstrate more
than about 65 dB worth of dynamic range. Often they only have more like 50
dB dynamic range.

Comparing the same vinyl
recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
frequency response is flatter, too.

Either card has the capability to accurately reproduce the dynamics and
timbre of a LP.

The Mia has a tad better frequency response, but anybody who cares to listen
properly (i.e., a level-matched, time-synchronized, blind listening test)
can be reasonably be expected to report back that the two sound cards sound
alike with music, provide the levels are optimized for each card.

The Mia, being designed for audio production, has been optimized for higher
signal levels. I think that it makes sense to prefer the Mia for digitizing
vinyl, but we need not criticize the TBSC to explain that preference.

The cruz tends to be a bit bass light and less dynamic.

Only if you don't match it properly to the application.

Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
less because the recording level is not always at 0 db.

Wrong and wrong. No way does the TBSC have 16 bits worth of dynamic range.
But, when you;'re recording vinyl, you don't have 16 bits worth of dynamic
range either. Vinyl can't do 96 dB dynamic range. Even with the stylus off
the record, you're hard pressed to have 96 dB dynamic range.

With the MIA, you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the
recording is
below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
range.

Wrong, no way does the Mia or any other commercial audio interface current
available have 24 bit resolution. A SOTA audio interface has more like 20-22
bits resolution, unwieghted, 20 KHz bandwidth. Remember, dynamic range and
resolution are two different ways to express the same concept and the same
physical event.


Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
vote still goes to the MIA

I agree that Echo is audio production oriented, and that Terrratec is
consumer oriented. They are both about audio, but different market segments
within audio. Creative is about audio, too but historically it has been more
oriented towards the gaming segment of consumer audio. Creative has been
going through some changes because the market is changing. They're doing a
big business with digital audio players, and that's a music listener's
market. Audio interfaces are natural adjuncts to digital audio players.

Technological progress relates as well. 5 years ago the dirt-cheap audio
interfaces built into motherboards were junk if you were a critical
listener. Today, the better on-board audio interfaces are climbing into the
sound quality range of a TBSC. I use one to digitize cassettes, and I have
no apologies for that.

Codifus wrote:

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl.

Been there, done that I think it doesn't. I know it doesn't if you are
reasonably careful with level setting. Read on!

Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic headroom, it is more able to
capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording.

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Echo Mia doesn't have 24 bits worth of
dynamic range. It actually has about 17 bits worth of dynamic range with 44
KHz sampling, worse at 96 KHz.

In contrast the TBSC has about 14 bits worth of dynamic range.

However, vinyl recordings only have about 12 bits worth of dynamic range.
The Mia buys you more margin when it comes to setting levels for recording.
However, with reasonable care, the TBSC is still an overkill solution for
digitizing vinyl.

Analog recordings don't have the corner on dynamics, particularly when we
are talking about analog tape or analog vinyl.

The best commercial recordings made have about 13 bits worth of dynamic
range no matter which format they are distributed in.

The Santa Cruz card is a 16 bit card with extra bits (18
recording, 20 playing, if memory serves) to make the 16 bits more
accurate, but in the end, its only 16 bit.

16 bits gives you about 96 dB dynamic range, This is no less than 20 dB more
dynamic range than any commercial recording ever made has, whether LP,
analog tape, or CD. Vinyl recordings are hard pressed to demonstrate more
than about 65 dB worth of dynamic range. Often they only have more like 50
dB dynamic range.

Comparing the same vinyl
recorded with the MIA vs the Cruz, the sound is more dynamic, and the
frequency response is flatter, too.

Either card has the capability to accurately reproduce the dynamics and
timbre of a LP.

The Mia has a tad better frequency response, but anybody who cares to listen
properly (i.e., a level-matched, time-synchronized, blind listening test)
can be reasonably be expected to report back that the two sound cards sound
alike with music, provide the levels are optimized for each card.

The Mia, being designed for audio production, has been optimized for higher
signal levels. I think that it makes sense to prefer the Mia for digitizing
vinyl, but we need not criticize the TBSC to explain that preference.

The cruz tends to be a bit bass light and less dynamic.

Only if you don't match it properly to the application.

Think about this: with the santa cruz, when
recording vinyl, you have to watch the meters for the peaks. At most,
at full scale, you're getting 16 bits of dynamic range, but usually
less because the recording level is not always at 0 db.

Wrong and wrong. No way does the TBSC have 16 bits worth of dynamic range.
But, when you;'re recording vinyl, you don't have 16 bits worth of dynamic
range either. Vinyl can't do 96 dB dynamic range. Even with the stylus off
the record, you're hard pressed to have 96 dB dynamic range.

With the MIA, you record at its full depth, 24 bit, and even when the
recording is
below full scale (0 db) you still have more than 16 bits of dynamic
range.

Wrong, no way does the Mia or any other commercial audio interface current
available have 24 bit resolution. A SOTA audio interface has more like 20-22
bits resolution, unwieghted, 20 KHz bandwidth. Remember, dynamic range and
resolution are two different ways to express the same concept and the same
physical event.


Now, back to this discussion about the TerraTec vs Mia. Even though
I've been mis-informed about how the phono-input works on the TerraTec
card, I would still lean to the MIA. If you look at Terra's entire
product line, then look at Echo's, you'd see what I mean. Echo is all
about audio. Terratec is sorof of kindof like, dare I say it,
CREATIVE. Since the issue does boil down to software equaliztion, then
the only variable is the quality of the AD-DA in the soundcard. My
vote still goes to the MIA

I agree that Echo is audio production oriented, and that Terrratec is
consumer oriented. They are both about audio, but different market segments
within audio. Creative is about audio, too but historically it has been more
oriented towards the gaming segment of consumer audio. Creative has been
going through some changes because the market is changing. They're doing a
big business with digital audio players, and that's a music listener's
market. Audio interfaces are natural adjuncts to digital audio players.

Technological progress relates as well. 5 years ago the dirt-cheap audio
interfaces built into motherboards were junk if you were a critical
listener. Today, the better on-board audio interfaces are climbing into the
sound quality range of a TBSC. I use one to digitize cassettes, and I have
no apologies for that.

On 30 Apr 2004 19:28:07 -0700, (Codifus) wrote:

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl. Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic
headroom, it is more able to capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording.

You're kidding yourself. Both about the input of the Mia and about
the dynamic range available from vinyl.

On 30 Apr 2004 19:28:07 -0700, (Codifus) wrote:

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl. Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic
headroom, it is more able to capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording.

You're kidding yourself. Both about the input of the Mia and about
the dynamic range available from vinyl.

On 30 Apr 2004 19:28:07 -0700, (Codifus) wrote:

There was mention of the Santa Cruz being more than adequate for
recording vinyl. I have owned both the Santa Cruz and the Echo MIA.
CoolEdit 2K is my software for both. The Echo MIA BLOWs the Santa cruz
away for recording vinyl. Why? Simple, with it's 24 bits of dynamic
headroom, it is more able to capture ALL of the dynamics of analog
recording.

You're kidding yourself. Both about the input of the Mia and about
the dynamic range available from vinyl.