"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message

Looked over the Echo card. I'd rather stick with unbalanced analog
in/outs, I think. I'd like to keep my existing preamp etc without
using adapters. Just more clutter.

Ironically, the Echo Mia, the Audiophile 2496 and the Delta 44 and Delta 66
all have unbalanced I/O. The TRS jacks are in effect, decoration.

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message

Looked over the Echo card. I'd rather stick with unbalanced analog
in/outs, I think. I'd like to keep my existing preamp etc without
using adapters. Just more clutter.

Ironically, the Echo Mia, the Audiophile 2496 and the Delta 44 and Delta 66
all have unbalanced I/O. The TRS jacks are in effect, decoration.

"Mark D. Zacharias" wrote in message

Looked over the Echo card. I'd rather stick with unbalanced analog
in/outs, I think. I'd like to keep my existing preamp etc without
using adapters. Just more clutter.

Ironically, the Echo Mia, the Audiophile 2496 and the Delta 44 and Delta 66
all have unbalanced I/O. The TRS jacks are in effect, decoration.

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news

I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much as
some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I am
hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the listening
comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I invite one and all to
do DBTs of these cards and reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare either card
to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a straight wire. Just
download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster. Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.


Abbedd

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news

I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much as
some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I am
hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the listening
comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I invite one and all to
do DBTs of these cards and reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare either card
to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a straight wire. Just
download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster. Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.


Abbedd

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news

I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much as
some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I am
hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the listening
comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I invite one and all to
do DBTs of these cards and reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare either card
to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a straight wire. Just
download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster. Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.


Abbedd

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news

I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much
as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I
am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the
listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of making a
recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even when the musical
sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre change in
the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain why and how they
slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards. You know,
one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous comparisons
like this. The audible differences between fairly good modern sound cards
and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely different things. And
since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd,
hearing differences between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's
darn hard to even level match them!

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news

I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much
as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I
am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the
listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of making a
recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even when the musical
sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre change in
the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain why and how they
slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards. You know,
one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous comparisons
like this. The audible differences between fairly good modern sound cards
and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely different things. And
since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd,
hearing differences between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's
darn hard to even level match them!

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news

I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much
as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I
am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the
listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of making a
recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even when the musical
sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre change in
the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain why and how they
slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards. You know,
one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous comparisons
like this. The audible differences between fairly good modern sound cards
and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely different things. And
since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd,
hearing differences between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's
darn hard to even level match them!

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much
as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I
am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the
listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of making a
recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even when the musical
sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre change in
the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain why and how they
slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards. You know,
one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous comparisons
like this. The audible differences between fairly good modern sound cards
and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely different things. And
since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd,
hearing differences between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's
darn hard to even level match them!



Arny

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo. Maybe I got a bad one, but
I doubt it.. I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion. And the
TBSC is built like ****. It looks like monkeys soldered the
condensers.





Abbedd

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much
as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I
am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the
listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of making a
recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even when the musical
sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre change in
the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain why and how they
slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards. You know,
one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous comparisons
like this. The audible differences between fairly good modern sound cards
and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely different things. And
since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd,
hearing differences between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's
darn hard to even level match them!



Arny

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo. Maybe I got a bad one, but
I doubt it.. I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion. And the
TBSC is built like ****. It looks like monkeys soldered the
condensers.





Abbedd

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the SC
is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as much
as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what I
am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the
listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of making a
recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even when the musical
sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre change in
the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain why and how they
slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards. You know,
one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous comparisons
like this. The audible differences between fairly good modern sound cards
and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely different things. And
since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd,
hearing differences between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's
darn hard to even level match them!



Arny

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo. Maybe I got a bad one, but
I doubt it.. I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion. And the
TBSC is built like ****. It looks like monkeys soldered the
condensers.





Abbedd

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:34:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the
SC is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as
much as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what
I am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the
listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators
from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of
making a recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even
when the musical sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to
record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre
change in the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain
why and how they slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards.
You know, one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous
comparisons like this. The audible differences between fairly good
modern sound cards and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely
different things. And since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on
this point either Abbedd, hearing differences between speakers is
well known to be very easy. It's darn hard to even level match them!

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo.

Stuff happens.

I've got 3 that work just fine.

Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it..

Statistics are on my side.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion.

I find it very interesting that you can't articulate what is purportedly
wrong with it.

And the TBSC is built like ****.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion, but again with three of them
on hand and 50 years of hands-on and theoretical experience with audio, I
don't know what you are talking about.

It looks like monkeys soldered the condensers.

I've got 3 that look just fine. Are you sure that this was new, first
quality product?

I got it from newegg.com

The TBSC had poor volume and was weak in certain octaves. Smooth it
ain't. Sounded like a late Lafayette amp.

Abbedd

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:34:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the
SC is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as
much as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what
I am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the
listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators
from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of
making a recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even
when the musical sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to
record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre
change in the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain
why and how they slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards.
You know, one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous
comparisons like this. The audible differences between fairly good
modern sound cards and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely
different things. And since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on
this point either Abbedd, hearing differences between speakers is
well known to be very easy. It's darn hard to even level match them!

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo.

Stuff happens.

I've got 3 that work just fine.

Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it..

Statistics are on my side.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion.

I find it very interesting that you can't articulate what is purportedly
wrong with it.

And the TBSC is built like ****.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion, but again with three of them
on hand and 50 years of hands-on and theoretical experience with audio, I
don't know what you are talking about.

It looks like monkeys soldered the condensers.

I've got 3 that look just fine. Are you sure that this was new, first
quality product?

I got it from newegg.com

The TBSC had poor volume and was weak in certain octaves. Smooth it
ain't. Sounded like a late Lafayette amp.

Abbedd

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:34:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I
took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the
SC is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as
much as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know what
I am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless the
listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as possible. I
invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and reach their own
conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators
from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of
making a recording that is indistinguishable from the original, even
when the musical sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard to
record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre
change in the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain
why and how they slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards.
You know, one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous
comparisons like this. The audible differences between fairly good
modern sound cards and legacy speakers are well known to be entirely
different things. And since you don't seem to be knowledgeable on
this point either Abbedd, hearing differences between speakers is
well known to be very easy. It's darn hard to even level match them!

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo.

Stuff happens.

I've got 3 that work just fine.

Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it..

Statistics are on my side.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion.

I find it very interesting that you can't articulate what is purportedly
wrong with it.

And the TBSC is built like ****.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion, but again with three of them
on hand and 50 years of hands-on and theoretical experience with audio, I
don't know what you are talking about.

It looks like monkeys soldered the condensers.

I've got 3 that look just fine. Are you sure that this was new, first
quality product?

I got it from newegg.com

The TBSC had poor volume and was weak in certain octaves. Smooth it
ain't. Sounded like a late Lafayette amp.

Abbedd

TonyP wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message
...

I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
do other stuff.


Hardly something to worry about with any modern CPU. It just spends even
more time doing nothing.
The Echo card does have a lot better performance though for the extra money.

TonyP.


Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and my
upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I once
did with the Cruz just because of that.

CD

TonyP wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message
...

I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
do other stuff.


Hardly something to worry about with any modern CPU. It just spends even
more time doing nothing.
The Echo card does have a lot better performance though for the extra money.

TonyP.


Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and my
upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I once
did with the Cruz just because of that.

CD

TonyP wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message
...

I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
do other stuff.


Hardly something to worry about with any modern CPU. It just spends even
more time doing nothing.
The Echo card does have a lot better performance though for the extra money.

TonyP.


Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and my
upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I once
did with the Cruz just because of that.

CD

Codifus wrote:

TonyP wrote:

"Codifus" wrote in message
...

I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
do other stuff.



Hardly something to worry about with any modern CPU. It just spends even
more time doing nothing.
The Echo card does have a lot better performance though for the extra
money.

TonyP.


Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and my
upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I once
did with the Cruz just because of that.

CD
My concern was only with the quality of the A/D D/A. The Santa Cruz is
probably one of the better 44.1/16 cards out there. I made some
recording in 48/16 and found that they sounded alot better, but 48/16 is
not a standard format anywhere. I can't make a music Cd with it. So when
I upgraded to a MIA, I record at either 88.2/24 or 96/24 then
downsampled to 44.1/16. The final music CD sounds way better than any
music CD I've ever made from the Cruz. Downsampling from 48/16 to
44.1/16 on the cruz was no help either. I suspect that the issues I had
with the cruz may have also had to do with the driver in that the
windows driver may have been re-sampling the data without giving me any
control over it. With the MIA, I have the Purewave drivers and they
bypass alot of the WDM crap between the card and your DAW software, mine
being CoolEdit.

Interestingly, I built up a DAW for my friend and gave him my Santa
Cruz. I used Winxp and the WDM drivers. Guess what? The Cruz was being
reported as a 96/16 capable device and I know that at its best, the Cruz
is a 48/16 card. Blame? That dammed WDM re-sampling.

CD

Codifus wrote:

TonyP wrote:

"Codifus" wrote in message
...

I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
do other stuff.



Hardly something to worry about with any modern CPU. It just spends even
more time doing nothing.
The Echo card does have a lot better performance though for the extra
money.

TonyP.


Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and my
upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I once
did with the Cruz just because of that.

CD
My concern was only with the quality of the A/D D/A. The Santa Cruz is
probably one of the better 44.1/16 cards out there. I made some
recording in 48/16 and found that they sounded alot better, but 48/16 is
not a standard format anywhere. I can't make a music Cd with it. So when
I upgraded to a MIA, I record at either 88.2/24 or 96/24 then
downsampled to 44.1/16. The final music CD sounds way better than any
music CD I've ever made from the Cruz. Downsampling from 48/16 to
44.1/16 on the cruz was no help either. I suspect that the issues I had
with the cruz may have also had to do with the driver in that the
windows driver may have been re-sampling the data without giving me any
control over it. With the MIA, I have the Purewave drivers and they
bypass alot of the WDM crap between the card and your DAW software, mine
being CoolEdit.

Interestingly, I built up a DAW for my friend and gave him my Santa
Cruz. I used Winxp and the WDM drivers. Guess what? The Cruz was being
reported as a 96/16 capable device and I know that at its best, the Cruz
is a 48/16 card. Blame? That dammed WDM re-sampling.

CD

Codifus wrote:

TonyP wrote:

"Codifus" wrote in message
...

I had a Santa Cruz. I then upgraded to an Echo MIA (the original without
the MIDI) The MP3 hardware encoding on the Santa Cruz means that the
card will lossy compress the music for you instead of your computer's
CPU, thereby making encoding happen faster and leaving your CPU free to
do other stuff.



Hardly something to worry about with any modern CPU. It just spends even
more time doing nothing.
The Echo card does have a lot better performance though for the extra
money.

TonyP.


Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and my
upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I once
did with the Cruz just because of that.

CD
My concern was only with the quality of the A/D D/A. The Santa Cruz is
probably one of the better 44.1/16 cards out there. I made some
recording in 48/16 and found that they sounded alot better, but 48/16 is
not a standard format anywhere. I can't make a music Cd with it. So when
I upgraded to a MIA, I record at either 88.2/24 or 96/24 then
downsampled to 44.1/16. The final music CD sounds way better than any
music CD I've ever made from the Cruz. Downsampling from 48/16 to
44.1/16 on the cruz was no help either. I suspect that the issues I had
with the cruz may have also had to do with the driver in that the
windows driver may have been re-sampling the data without giving me any
control over it. With the MIA, I have the Purewave drivers and they
bypass alot of the WDM crap between the card and your DAW software, mine
being CoolEdit.

Interestingly, I built up a DAW for my friend and gave him my Santa
Cruz. I used Winxp and the WDM drivers. Guess what? The Cruz was being
reported as a 96/16 capable device and I know that at its best, the Cruz
is a 48/16 card. Blame? That dammed WDM re-sampling.

CD

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:34:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60
seconds I took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the
SC is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as
much as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know
what I am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless
the listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as
possible. I invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and
reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators
from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of
making a recording that is indistinguishable from the original,
even when the musical sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard
to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre
change in the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain
why and how they slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards.
You know, one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous
comparisons like this. The audible differences between fairly good
modern sound cards and legacy speakers are well known to be
entirely different things. And since you don't seem to be
knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd, hearing differences
between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's darn hard to
even level match them!

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo.

Stuff happens.

I've got 3 that work just fine.

Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it..

Statistics are on my side.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion.

I find it very interesting that you can't articulate what is
purportedly wrong with it.

And the TBSC is built like ****.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion, but again with three
of them on hand and 50 years of hands-on and theoretical experience
with audio, I don't know what you are talking about.

It looks like monkeys soldered the condensers.

I've got 3 that look just fine. Are you sure that this was new, first
quality product?

I got it from newegg.com

The TBSC had poor volume and was weak in certain octaves. Smooth it
ain't. Sounded like a late Lafayette amp.

See if you can say that about the TBSC demoed at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:34:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60
seconds I took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the
SC is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as
much as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know
what I am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless
the listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as
possible. I invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and
reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators
from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of
making a recording that is indistinguishable from the original,
even when the musical sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard
to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre
change in the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain
why and how they slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards.
You know, one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous
comparisons like this. The audible differences between fairly good
modern sound cards and legacy speakers are well known to be
entirely different things. And since you don't seem to be
knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd, hearing differences
between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's darn hard to
even level match them!

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo.

Stuff happens.

I've got 3 that work just fine.

Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it..

Statistics are on my side.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion.

I find it very interesting that you can't articulate what is
purportedly wrong with it.

And the TBSC is built like ****.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion, but again with three
of them on hand and 50 years of hands-on and theoretical experience
with audio, I don't know what you are talking about.

It looks like monkeys soldered the condensers.

I've got 3 that look just fine. Are you sure that this was new, first
quality product?

I got it from newegg.com

The TBSC had poor volume and was weak in certain octaves. Smooth it
ain't. Sounded like a late Lafayette amp.

See if you can say that about the TBSC demoed at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:34:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60
seconds I took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the
SC is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as
much as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know
what I am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless
the listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as
possible. I invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and
reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators
from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of
making a recording that is indistinguishable from the original,
even when the musical sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard
to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre
change in the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain
why and how they slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards.
You know, one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous
comparisons like this. The audible differences between fairly good
modern sound cards and legacy speakers are well known to be
entirely different things. And since you don't seem to be
knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd, hearing differences
between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's darn hard to
even level match them!

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo.

Stuff happens.

I've got 3 that work just fine.

Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it..

Statistics are on my side.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion.

I find it very interesting that you can't articulate what is
purportedly wrong with it.

And the TBSC is built like ****.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion, but again with three
of them on hand and 50 years of hands-on and theoretical experience
with audio, I don't know what you are talking about.

It looks like monkeys soldered the condensers.

I've got 3 that look just fine. Are you sure that this was new, first
quality product?

I got it from newegg.com

The TBSC had poor volume and was weak in certain octaves. Smooth it
ain't. Sounded like a late Lafayette amp.

See if you can say that about the TBSC demoed at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:20:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:34:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60
seconds I took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the
SC is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as
much as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know
what I am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless
the listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as
possible. I invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and
reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators
from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of
making a recording that is indistinguishable from the original,
even when the musical sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard
to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre
change in the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain
why and how they slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards.
You know, one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous
comparisons like this. The audible differences between fairly good
modern sound cards and legacy speakers are well known to be
entirely different things. And since you don't seem to be
knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd, hearing differences
between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's darn hard to
even level match them!

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo.

Stuff happens.

I've got 3 that work just fine.

Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it..

Statistics are on my side.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion.

I find it very interesting that you can't articulate what is
purportedly wrong with it.

And the TBSC is built like ****.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion, but again with three
of them on hand and 50 years of hands-on and theoretical experience
with audio, I don't know what you are talking about.

It looks like monkeys soldered the condensers.

I've got 3 that look just fine. Are you sure that this was new, first
quality product?

I got it from newegg.com

The TBSC had poor volume and was weak in certain octaves. Smooth it
ain't. Sounded like a late Lafayette amp.

See if you can say that about the TBSC demoed at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Tests done with Windows98 SE. Maybe the XP drivers are ****.

Abbedd

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:20:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:34:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60
seconds I took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the
SC is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as
much as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know
what I am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless
the listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as
possible. I invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and
reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators
from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of
making a recording that is indistinguishable from the original,
even when the musical sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard
to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre
change in the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain
why and how they slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards.
You know, one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous
comparisons like this. The audible differences between fairly good
modern sound cards and legacy speakers are well known to be
entirely different things. And since you don't seem to be
knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd, hearing differences
between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's darn hard to
even level match them!

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo.

Stuff happens.

I've got 3 that work just fine.

Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it..

Statistics are on my side.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion.

I find it very interesting that you can't articulate what is
purportedly wrong with it.

And the TBSC is built like ****.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion, but again with three
of them on hand and 50 years of hands-on and theoretical experience
with audio, I don't know what you are talking about.

It looks like monkeys soldered the condensers.

I've got 3 that look just fine. Are you sure that this was new, first
quality product?

I got it from newegg.com

The TBSC had poor volume and was weak in certain octaves. Smooth it
ain't. Sounded like a late Lafayette amp.

See if you can say that about the TBSC demoed at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Tests done with Windows98 SE. Maybe the XP drivers are ****.

Abbedd

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:20:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:34:20 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 09:22:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 07:48:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message


On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:29:41 +1000, "TonyP"
wrote:

"ansermetniac" wrote in message
news
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60
seconds I took it out and put back by Sound Blaster

60 seconds told you absolutely nothing. I've used both, and the
SC is better than the SB live for almost everything. (not by as
much as some would have you believe)
Says more about the person than the cards really.

Maybe I have better ears than you. And the knowledge to know
what I am hearing.

Disucssions like this tend to turn into ****ing matches unless
the listening comparisons are as fair and as unbiased as
possible. I invite one and all to do DBTs of these cards and
reach their own conclusions.

You can either compare one card to the other, or you can compare
either card to an absolute standard, which is figuratively a
straight wire. Just download the test files and DBT comparators
from:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/ct4830/index.htm

http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm

Let your ears be the judge!

No DBT is needed to decide the diference the Turtle beach and the
Blaster.

Abbedd, I can smell the fear from here!

I can also summarize the results of the DBTs - A TBSC is capable of
making a recording that is indistinguishable from the original,
even when the musical sounds being recorded are exceptionally hard
to record properly.

Not so with the SB Live! For example, most people catch the timbre
change in the trumpets pretty quickly, even in a DBT. Wanna explain
why and how they slipped by you, Abbedd?

Of course this is contingent on a good installation of both cards.
You know, one without pops or clicks due to configuration errors.

Next you will be telling me that I need a DBT to tell the
difference between my Bozaks and the B & W 802s.

Abbedd, you're reducing yourself to an absurdity with ludicrous
comparisons like this. The audible differences between fairly good
modern sound cards and legacy speakers are well known to be
entirely different things. And since you don't seem to be
knowledgeable on this point either Abbedd, hearing differences
between speakers is well known to be very easy. It's darn hard to
even level match them!

The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo.

Stuff happens.

I've got 3 that work just fine.

Maybe I got a bad one, but I doubt it..

Statistics are on my side.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion.

I find it very interesting that you can't articulate what is
purportedly wrong with it.

And the TBSC is built like ****.

I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion, but again with three
of them on hand and 50 years of hands-on and theoretical experience
with audio, I don't know what you are talking about.

It looks like monkeys soldered the condensers.

I've got 3 that look just fine. Are you sure that this was new, first
quality product?

I got it from newegg.com

The TBSC had poor volume and was weak in certain octaves. Smooth it
ain't. Sounded like a late Lafayette amp.

See if you can say that about the TBSC demoed at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/santa_cruz/index.htm .

Tests done with Windows98 SE. Maybe the XP drivers are ****.

Abbedd

"Codifus" wrote in message

Codifus wrote:

Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and
my upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I
once did with the Cruz just because of that.

The Mia has about 15 dB more dynamic range than the TBSC. So if you are
like me and like to record with lotsa headroom, the better converters in the
Mia can make themselves heard.

My concern was only with the quality of the A/D D/A. The Santa Cruz is
probably one of the better 44.1/16 cards out there. I made some
recording in 48/16 and found that they sounded alot better, but 48/16
is not a standard format anywhere. I can't make a music Cd with it.

But its no biggie to downsample 48/16 to 44/16, and do it with excellent
sound quality if you do it properly with software like Audition.

So when I upgraded to a MIA, I record at either 88.2/24 or 96/24 then
downsampled to 44.1/16.

IME, high rate sampling is a waste of time. The DBTs you can do with files
you download from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm can
clarify that.

The final music CD sounds way better than any
music CD I've ever made from the Cruz.

The TBSC puts a premium on careful level setting, and getting things right
the first time. I don't have the time or effort to spare, so I do most of my
work with a M-Audio 1010.

Downsampling from 48/16 to
44.1/16 on the cruz was no help either. I suspect that the issues I
had with the cruz may have also had to do with the driver in that the
windows driver may have been re-sampling the data without giving me
any control over it. With the MIA, I have the Purewave drivers and
they bypass alot of the WDM crap between the card and your DAW
software, mine being CoolEdit.

The files at http://64.41.69.21/product/santa_cruz/index.htm were done with
a TBSC and CoolEdit Pro.

Interestingly, I built up a DAW for my friend and gave him my Santa
Cruz. I used Winxp and the WDM drivers. Guess what? The Cruz was being
reported as a 96/16 capable device and I know that at its best, the
Cruz is a 48/16 card. Blame? That dammed WDM re-sampling.

I try not to go there.

"Codifus" wrote in message

Codifus wrote:

Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and
my upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I
once did with the Cruz just because of that.

The Mia has about 15 dB more dynamic range than the TBSC. So if you are
like me and like to record with lotsa headroom, the better converters in the
Mia can make themselves heard.

My concern was only with the quality of the A/D D/A. The Santa Cruz is
probably one of the better 44.1/16 cards out there. I made some
recording in 48/16 and found that they sounded alot better, but 48/16
is not a standard format anywhere. I can't make a music Cd with it.

But its no biggie to downsample 48/16 to 44/16, and do it with excellent
sound quality if you do it properly with software like Audition.

So when I upgraded to a MIA, I record at either 88.2/24 or 96/24 then
downsampled to 44.1/16.

IME, high rate sampling is a waste of time. The DBTs you can do with files
you download from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm can
clarify that.

The final music CD sounds way better than any
music CD I've ever made from the Cruz.

The TBSC puts a premium on careful level setting, and getting things right
the first time. I don't have the time or effort to spare, so I do most of my
work with a M-Audio 1010.

Downsampling from 48/16 to
44.1/16 on the cruz was no help either. I suspect that the issues I
had with the cruz may have also had to do with the driver in that the
windows driver may have been re-sampling the data without giving me
any control over it. With the MIA, I have the Purewave drivers and
they bypass alot of the WDM crap between the card and your DAW
software, mine being CoolEdit.

The files at http://64.41.69.21/product/santa_cruz/index.htm were done with
a TBSC and CoolEdit Pro.

Interestingly, I built up a DAW for my friend and gave him my Santa
Cruz. I used Winxp and the WDM drivers. Guess what? The Cruz was being
reported as a 96/16 capable device and I know that at its best, the
Cruz is a 48/16 card. Blame? That dammed WDM re-sampling.

I try not to go there.

"Codifus" wrote in message

Codifus wrote:

Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and
my upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I
once did with the Cruz just because of that.

The Mia has about 15 dB more dynamic range than the TBSC. So if you are
like me and like to record with lotsa headroom, the better converters in the
Mia can make themselves heard.

My concern was only with the quality of the A/D D/A. The Santa Cruz is
probably one of the better 44.1/16 cards out there. I made some
recording in 48/16 and found that they sounded alot better, but 48/16
is not a standard format anywhere. I can't make a music Cd with it.

But its no biggie to downsample 48/16 to 44/16, and do it with excellent
sound quality if you do it properly with software like Audition.

So when I upgraded to a MIA, I record at either 88.2/24 or 96/24 then
downsampled to 44.1/16.

IME, high rate sampling is a waste of time. The DBTs you can do with files
you download from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm can
clarify that.

The final music CD sounds way better than any
music CD I've ever made from the Cruz.

The TBSC puts a premium on careful level setting, and getting things right
the first time. I don't have the time or effort to spare, so I do most of my
work with a M-Audio 1010.

Downsampling from 48/16 to
44.1/16 on the cruz was no help either. I suspect that the issues I
had with the cruz may have also had to do with the driver in that the
windows driver may have been re-sampling the data without giving me
any control over it. With the MIA, I have the Purewave drivers and
they bypass alot of the WDM crap between the card and your DAW
software, mine being CoolEdit.

The files at http://64.41.69.21/product/santa_cruz/index.htm were done with
a TBSC and CoolEdit Pro.

Interestingly, I built up a DAW for my friend and gave him my Santa
Cruz. I used Winxp and the WDM drivers. Guess what? The Cruz was being
reported as a 96/16 capable device and I know that at its best, the
Cruz is a 48/16 card. Blame? That dammed WDM re-sampling.

I try not to go there.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message


Codifus wrote:


Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and
my upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I
once did with the Cruz just because of that.


The Mia has about 15 dB more dynamic range than the TBSC. So if you are
like me and like to record with lotsa headroom, the better converters in the
Mia can make themselves heard.

Yup Yup. I am done with finding the peak level of any analog recording.
It's unnecessary work. Just record at reasonably high levels, then
Normalize the data to 0 when your just about done with all DAW edits.


My concern was only with the quality of the A/D D/A. The Santa Cruz is
probably one of the better 44.1/16 cards out there. I made some
recording in 48/16 and found that they sounded alot better, but 48/16
is not a standard format anywhere. I can't make a music Cd with it.


But its no biggie to downsample 48/16 to 44/16, and do it with excellent
sound quality if you do it properly with software like Audition.
I use CoolEdit, the earlier edition of Audition, and I found that
downsampling from 48/16 to 44.1/16 lost something. It could have been
due to the TBSC, the drivers, who knows? But it was there.



So when I upgraded to a MIA, I record at either 88.2/24 or 96/24 then
downsampled to 44.1/16.


IME, high rate sampling is a waste of time. The DBTs you can do with files
you download from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm can
clarify that.

That may be true, but I still can definitely feel/hear the bit depth
difference, and the TBSC doesn't have that.



The final music CD sounds way better than any
music CD I've ever made from the Cruz.


The TBSC puts a premium on careful level setting, and getting things right
the first time. I don't have the time or effort to spare, so I do most of my
work with a M-Audio 1010.

See? even your sentence is exhausting just thinking about it




Downsampling from 48/16 to
44.1/16 on the cruz was no help either. I suspect that the issues I
had with the cruz may have also had to do with the driver in that the
windows driver may have been re-sampling the data without giving me
any control over it. With the MIA, I have the Purewave drivers and
they bypass alot of the WDM crap between the card and your DAW
software, mine being CoolEdit.


The files at http://64.41.69.21/product/santa_cruz/index.htm were done with
a TBSC and CoolEdit Pro.


Interestingly, I built up a DAW for my friend and gave him my Santa
Cruz. I used Winxp and the WDM drivers. Guess what? The Cruz was being
reported as a 96/16 capable device and I know that at its best, the
Cruz is a 48/16 card. Blame? That dammed WDM re-sampling.


I try not to go there.

Why not? I'd like to know that when I set the card to a certain sampling
rate/bit depth, that's what I'm getting, not some artificially
re-created samples. And to take it further, what's to say that when I
set my WDM driven TBSC to 44.1/16, a rate that it can do, this data is
not being re-sampled either?



CD

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message


Codifus wrote:


Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and
my upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I
once did with the Cruz just because of that.


The Mia has about 15 dB more dynamic range than the TBSC. So if you are
like me and like to record with lotsa headroom, the better converters in the
Mia can make themselves heard.

Yup Yup. I am done with finding the peak level of any analog recording.
It's unnecessary work. Just record at reasonably high levels, then
Normalize the data to 0 when your just about done with all DAW edits.


My concern was only with the quality of the A/D D/A. The Santa Cruz is
probably one of the better 44.1/16 cards out there. I made some
recording in 48/16 and found that they sounded alot better, but 48/16
is not a standard format anywhere. I can't make a music Cd with it.


But its no biggie to downsample 48/16 to 44/16, and do it with excellent
sound quality if you do it properly with software like Audition.
I use CoolEdit, the earlier edition of Audition, and I found that
downsampling from 48/16 to 44.1/16 lost something. It could have been
due to the TBSC, the drivers, who knows? But it was there.



So when I upgraded to a MIA, I record at either 88.2/24 or 96/24 then
downsampled to 44.1/16.


IME, high rate sampling is a waste of time. The DBTs you can do with files
you download from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm can
clarify that.

That may be true, but I still can definitely feel/hear the bit depth
difference, and the TBSC doesn't have that.



The final music CD sounds way better than any
music CD I've ever made from the Cruz.


The TBSC puts a premium on careful level setting, and getting things right
the first time. I don't have the time or effort to spare, so I do most of my
work with a M-Audio 1010.

See? even your sentence is exhausting just thinking about it




Downsampling from 48/16 to
44.1/16 on the cruz was no help either. I suspect that the issues I
had with the cruz may have also had to do with the driver in that the
windows driver may have been re-sampling the data without giving me
any control over it. With the MIA, I have the Purewave drivers and
they bypass alot of the WDM crap between the card and your DAW
software, mine being CoolEdit.


The files at http://64.41.69.21/product/santa_cruz/index.htm were done with
a TBSC and CoolEdit Pro.


Interestingly, I built up a DAW for my friend and gave him my Santa
Cruz. I used Winxp and the WDM drivers. Guess what? The Cruz was being
reported as a 96/16 capable device and I know that at its best, the
Cruz is a 48/16 card. Blame? That dammed WDM re-sampling.


I try not to go there.

Why not? I'd like to know that when I set the card to a certain sampling
rate/bit depth, that's what I'm getting, not some artificially
re-created samples. And to take it further, what's to say that when I
set my WDM driven TBSC to 44.1/16, a rate that it can do, this data is
not being re-sampled either?



CD

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Codifus" wrote in message


Codifus wrote:


Exactly. I never used the hardware mp3 compression on the Cruz, and
my upgrade to the MIA was to get better A/D D/A performance, which it
definitely gave me I am re-doing all my analog recordings that I
once did with the Cruz just because of that.


The Mia has about 15 dB more dynamic range than the TBSC. So if you are
like me and like to record with lotsa headroom, the better converters in the
Mia can make themselves heard.

Yup Yup. I am done with finding the peak level of any analog recording.
It's unnecessary work. Just record at reasonably high levels, then
Normalize the data to 0 when your just about done with all DAW edits.


My concern was only with the quality of the A/D D/A. The Santa Cruz is
probably one of the better 44.1/16 cards out there. I made some
recording in 48/16 and found that they sounded alot better, but 48/16
is not a standard format anywhere. I can't make a music Cd with it.


But its no biggie to downsample 48/16 to 44/16, and do it with excellent
sound quality if you do it properly with software like Audition.
I use CoolEdit, the earlier edition of Audition, and I found that
downsampling from 48/16 to 44.1/16 lost something. It could have been
due to the TBSC, the drivers, who knows? But it was there.



So when I upgraded to a MIA, I record at either 88.2/24 or 96/24 then
downsampled to 44.1/16.


IME, high rate sampling is a waste of time. The DBTs you can do with files
you download from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm can
clarify that.

That may be true, but I still can definitely feel/hear the bit depth
difference, and the TBSC doesn't have that.



The final music CD sounds way better than any
music CD I've ever made from the Cruz.


The TBSC puts a premium on careful level setting, and getting things right
the first time. I don't have the time or effort to spare, so I do most of my
work with a M-Audio 1010.

See? even your sentence is exhausting just thinking about it




Downsampling from 48/16 to
44.1/16 on the cruz was no help either. I suspect that the issues I
had with the cruz may have also had to do with the driver in that the
windows driver may have been re-sampling the data without giving me
any control over it. With the MIA, I have the Purewave drivers and
they bypass alot of the WDM crap between the card and your DAW
software, mine being CoolEdit.


The files at http://64.41.69.21/product/santa_cruz/index.htm were done with
a TBSC and CoolEdit Pro.


Interestingly, I built up a DAW for my friend and gave him my Santa
Cruz. I used Winxp and the WDM drivers. Guess what? The Cruz was being
reported as a 96/16 capable device and I know that at its best, the
Cruz is a 48/16 card. Blame? That dammed WDM re-sampling.


I try not to go there.

Why not? I'd like to know that when I set the card to a certain sampling
rate/bit depth, that's what I'm getting, not some artificially
re-created samples. And to take it further, what's to say that when I
set my WDM driven TBSC to 44.1/16, a rate that it can do, this data is
not being re-sampled either?



CD

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:11:53 GMT, ansermetniac
wrote:

I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
it out and put back by Sound Blaster

Well, tell us why?

It's not top of my list. But it works. And, in basic operation,
shouldn't sound all that different to a SB.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:11:53 GMT, ansermetniac
wrote:

I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
it out and put back by Sound Blaster

Well, tell us why?

It's not top of my list. But it works. And, in basic operation,
shouldn't sound all that different to a SB.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:11:53 GMT, ansermetniac
wrote:

I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
it out and put back by Sound Blaster

Well, tell us why?

It's not top of my list. But it works. And, in basic operation,
shouldn't sound all that different to a SB.

ansermetniac wrote:
Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
it out and put back by Sound Blaster


Did you have a broken one or are you deaf ?

geoff

ansermetniac wrote:


The TBSC card I have is a piece of doo doo. Maybe I got a bad one, but
I doubt it.. I don't need a DBT to come to that conclusion. And the
TBSC is built like ****. It looks like monkeys soldered the
condensers.


Condensers ? Jeeze, I didn't know that had digital soundcards that long
ago. The capacitors on mine appear soldered just fine. Sounds like you may
indeed have a rooted one, that has been dicked with.

geoff

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:04:49 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
-nospam wrote:

ansermetniac wrote:
Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
it out and put back by Sound Blaster


Did you have a broken one or are you deaf ?

geoff

Sorry can't hear you. Have my acoustical engineering patents stuck in
my ears.


Abbedd

ansermetniac wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 17:04:49 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
-nospam wrote:

ansermetniac wrote:
Look at the M-Audio Audiophile 2496.
I bought the Santa Cruz upon reccomendation. After 60 seconds I took
it out and put back by Sound Blaster


Did you have a broken one or are you deaf ?

geoff

Sorry can't hear you. Have my acoustical engineering patents stuck in
my ears.

Even George Martin is deaf nowadays ...

geoff