Hello, all, just wanted to share a little success story for posterity.
In the past, I believed sound cards were low-resource, low-attention,
low-priority hardware. Sounds require little resources

I bought a turntable with Line Out (Stanton STR8-80 specifically, it's
wonderful, but the model is not pertinent) and started recording with my
motherboard's built-in Line In. I carefully avoided any activity which would
distract the machine from its recording. No typing while transcribing, etc.
Still, the results had occasional hiccups. Not horrible but not optimal. I
thought it was unavoidable.

Musicians Friend offered the M-Audio Delta 410 sound card for $99 so I
bought it. I wanted to test the SPDIF out on my turntable and DVD player.
And my "affordable" trigger has a $100 setting.

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

Or had placed itself on an unshared IRQ :-) Even AC97 onboard
systems are normally capable of an uninterrupted simple recording,
though they can be noisy, and have definite problems once you get into
multi-track work.

Or maybe yours was super-crap :-) How old is the computer?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

Or had placed itself on an unshared IRQ :-) Even AC97 onboard
systems are normally capable of an uninterrupted simple recording,
though they can be noisy, and have definite problems once you get into
multi-track work.

Or maybe yours was super-crap :-) How old is the computer?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

Or had placed itself on an unshared IRQ :-) Even AC97 onboard
systems are normally capable of an uninterrupted simple recording,
though they can be noisy, and have definite problems once you get into
multi-track work.

Or maybe yours was super-crap :-) How old is the computer?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

Or had placed itself on an unshared IRQ :-) Even AC97 onboard
systems are normally capable of an uninterrupted simple recording,
though they can be noisy, and have definite problems once you get into
multi-track work.

Or maybe yours was super-crap :-) How old is the computer?

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

Or had placed itself on an unshared IRQ :-) Even AC97 onboard
systems are normally capable of an uninterrupted simple recording,
though they can be noisy, and have definite problems once you get into
multi-track work.

Or maybe yours was super-crap :-) How old is the computer?

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

Hello, all, just wanted to share a little success story for posterity.
In the past, I believed sound cards were low-resource, low-attention,
low-priority hardware. Sounds require little resources

I bought a turntable with Line Out (Stanton STR8-80 specifically, it's
wonderful, but the model is not pertinent) and started recording with my
motherboard's built-in Line In. I carefully avoided any activity which would
distract the machine from its recording. No typing while transcribing, etc.
Still, the results had occasional hiccups. Not horrible but not optimal. I
thought it was unavoidable.

Musicians Friend offered the M-Audio Delta 410 sound card for $99 so I
bought it. I wanted to test the SPDIF out on my turntable and DVD player.
And my "affordable" trigger has a $100 setting.

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

Hello, all, just wanted to share a little success story for posterity.
In the past, I believed sound cards were low-resource, low-attention,
low-priority hardware. Sounds require little resources

I bought a turntable with Line Out (Stanton STR8-80 specifically, it's
wonderful, but the model is not pertinent) and started recording with my
motherboard's built-in Line In. I carefully avoided any activity which would
distract the machine from its recording. No typing while transcribing, etc.
Still, the results had occasional hiccups. Not horrible but not optimal. I
thought it was unavoidable.

Musicians Friend offered the M-Audio Delta 410 sound card for $99 so I
bought it. I wanted to test the SPDIF out on my turntable and DVD player.
And my "affordable" trigger has a $100 setting.

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

Hello, all, just wanted to share a little success story for posterity.
In the past, I believed sound cards were low-resource, low-attention,
low-priority hardware. Sounds require little resources

I bought a turntable with Line Out (Stanton STR8-80 specifically, it's
wonderful, but the model is not pertinent) and started recording with my
motherboard's built-in Line In. I carefully avoided any activity which would
distract the machine from its recording. No typing while transcribing, etc.
Still, the results had occasional hiccups. Not horrible but not optimal. I
thought it was unavoidable.

Musicians Friend offered the M-Audio Delta 410 sound card for $99 so I
bought it. I wanted to test the SPDIF out on my turntable and DVD player.
And my "affordable" trigger has a $100 setting.

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

Hello, all, just wanted to share a little success story for posterity.
In the past, I believed sound cards were low-resource, low-attention,
low-priority hardware. Sounds require little resources

I bought a turntable with Line Out (Stanton STR8-80 specifically, it's
wonderful, but the model is not pertinent) and started recording with my
motherboard's built-in Line In. I carefully avoided any activity which would
distract the machine from its recording. No typing while transcribing, etc.
Still, the results had occasional hiccups. Not horrible but not optimal. I
thought it was unavoidable.

Musicians Friend offered the M-Audio Delta 410 sound card for $99 so I
bought it. I wanted to test the SPDIF out on my turntable and DVD player.
And my "affordable" trigger has a $100 setting.

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:51:35 GMT, "JeffK" wrote:

Hello, all, just wanted to share a little success story for posterity.
In the past, I believed sound cards were low-resource, low-attention,
low-priority hardware. Sounds require little resources

I bought a turntable with Line Out (Stanton STR8-80 specifically, it's
wonderful, but the model is not pertinent) and started recording with my
motherboard's built-in Line In. I carefully avoided any activity which would
distract the machine from its recording. No typing while transcribing, etc.
Still, the results had occasional hiccups. Not horrible but not optimal. I
thought it was unavoidable.

Musicians Friend offered the M-Audio Delta 410 sound card for $99 so I
bought it. I wanted to test the SPDIF out on my turntable and DVD player.
And my "affordable" trigger has a $100 setting.

OK, here's where I discover soundcards ARE different.

I recorded a dozen LPs this weekend to my computer, while web surfing,
emailing and working on the company VPN.

No hiccups. No gaps. The sound card is obviously handling more of the the
job.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

At first, I thought it might be poor attention to gain settings
during the original recording process. It never got bad enough to
have audible dropouts. And, yes, it is like using a Winmodem. Even
being on the network/internet seems to affect the system's ability to
do its best at sound processing. If the Video card is made "brain
dead" and the sound card features are all turned on, the "problem"
disappears. And the sound is first rate.

I've tried playing back the same recording, using different video card
configurations, with and without network connections, and the
differences are audible. It seems that anything that can be
"checking" is a potential signal interruption. I've even turned off
the CD "check for disk inserted" for that reason.

Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:57:19 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

At first, I thought it might be poor attention to gain settings
during the original recording process. It never got bad enough to
have audible dropouts. And, yes, it is like using a Winmodem. Even
being on the network/internet seems to affect the system's ability to
do its best at sound processing. If the Video card is made "brain
dead" and the sound card features are all turned on, the "problem"
disappears. And the sound is first rate.

I've tried playing back the same recording, using different video card
configurations, with and without network connections, and the
differences are audible. It seems that anything that can be
"checking" is a potential signal interruption. I've even turned off
the CD "check for disk inserted" for that reason.

Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:57:19 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

At first, I thought it might be poor attention to gain settings
during the original recording process. It never got bad enough to
have audible dropouts. And, yes, it is like using a Winmodem. Even
being on the network/internet seems to affect the system's ability to
do its best at sound processing. If the Video card is made "brain
dead" and the sound card features are all turned on, the "problem"
disappears. And the sound is first rate.

I've tried playing back the same recording, using different video card
configurations, with and without network connections, and the
differences are audible. It seems that anything that can be
"checking" is a potential signal interruption. I've even turned off
the CD "check for disk inserted" for that reason.

Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:57:19 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

At first, I thought it might be poor attention to gain settings
during the original recording process. It never got bad enough to
have audible dropouts. And, yes, it is like using a Winmodem. Even
being on the network/internet seems to affect the system's ability to
do its best at sound processing. If the Video card is made "brain
dead" and the sound card features are all turned on, the "problem"
disappears. And the sound is first rate.

I've tried playing back the same recording, using different video card
configurations, with and without network connections, and the
differences are audible. It seems that anything that can be
"checking" is a potential signal interruption. I've even turned off
the CD "check for disk inserted" for that reason.

Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:57:19 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

At first, I thought it might be poor attention to gain settings
during the original recording process. It never got bad enough to
have audible dropouts. And, yes, it is like using a Winmodem. Even
being on the network/internet seems to affect the system's ability to
do its best at sound processing. If the Video card is made "brain
dead" and the sound card features are all turned on, the "problem"
disappears. And the sound is first rate.

I've tried playing back the same recording, using different video card
configurations, with and without network connections, and the
differences are audible. It seems that anything that can be
"checking" is a potential signal interruption. I've even turned off
the CD "check for disk inserted" for that reason.

Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:57:19 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:40:04 GMT, Stu-R wrote:

I find big differences in quality when other devices/processes are
using computer resources. I do some audio-video editing and, in this
case, have found that the manufacturer (Creative Soundblaster Live!)
is right when he recommends that the video card bells and whistles be
turned off to allow those clock cycles to be available to the sound
card. When I set the video card up with all options turned off, the
audio is as good as one might want. Clarity and definition for choral
groups is great. But with all the video card options on, the drop in
sound quality is noticeable. Using a more potent video card reduces,
but doesn't eliminate this problem.

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response, or an increase in
glitches and drop-outs? I'm not sure how just how much of an
AC97-based system is in software. Does it dispense with a hardware
analogue digital converter at the input? It's rather like using a
Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I suppose.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response,

Can't and doesn't happen.

or an increase in glitches and drop-outs?

Far more likely.

I'm not sure how just how much of an AC97-based system is in software.

As much as possible.

Does it dispense with a hardware analogue digital converter at the
input?

No. Nor does it dispense with the digital analog converter at the output.

The canonical sound card of 1995 was composed of a A/D, D/A, simple FM MIDI
sound generator, MIDI I/O ports, a port for a simple analog joystick and an
ISA interface for all of the above. Drop the MIDI and joystick stuff, and
focus on converter and analog audio interface stuff perhaps replicating them
a large number of times, and you have a canonical (multichannel) audio
production card.

By 1999 the I/O interface was PCI, a complex DSP was interposed between the
converters and the PCI interface, the simple FM MIDI was replaced by a
complex DSP-based wave table sound generator, and the MIDI & analog joystick
stuff was still there but USB was beginning to encroach on the analog
joystick interface's territory.

The main difference that the AC97 type on-board designs change is that they
back out as much of the DSP-based processing as possible. The converters and
"world" interfaces are still there, but the PCI interfaces are falling by
the wayside in favor of more highly integrated technologies that tighten the
connection between the peripherals and the CPU. The DSP processing load was
thrown back onto the CPU.

In 1995 CPU power was relatively expensive and rare, so offloading the CPU
work onto a variety of controllers and DSPs made sense. In 2004, we've got
CPU power to literally burn, so there has been a strong trend to simplify
the I/O interfaces and do as much of the processing as possible in the CPU.

There's a parallel with winmodems - as the classic ISA modem of 1996 also
had a DSP and dedicated microprocessor that largely disappeared and was
replaced by motherboard functions.

It's rather like using a Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I
suppose.

Don't knock Winmodem-type modems, they are about the only thing you can buy
these days.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response,

Can't and doesn't happen.

or an increase in glitches and drop-outs?

Far more likely.

I'm not sure how just how much of an AC97-based system is in software.

As much as possible.

Does it dispense with a hardware analogue digital converter at the
input?

No. Nor does it dispense with the digital analog converter at the output.

The canonical sound card of 1995 was composed of a A/D, D/A, simple FM MIDI
sound generator, MIDI I/O ports, a port for a simple analog joystick and an
ISA interface for all of the above. Drop the MIDI and joystick stuff, and
focus on converter and analog audio interface stuff perhaps replicating them
a large number of times, and you have a canonical (multichannel) audio
production card.

By 1999 the I/O interface was PCI, a complex DSP was interposed between the
converters and the PCI interface, the simple FM MIDI was replaced by a
complex DSP-based wave table sound generator, and the MIDI & analog joystick
stuff was still there but USB was beginning to encroach on the analog
joystick interface's territory.

The main difference that the AC97 type on-board designs change is that they
back out as much of the DSP-based processing as possible. The converters and
"world" interfaces are still there, but the PCI interfaces are falling by
the wayside in favor of more highly integrated technologies that tighten the
connection between the peripherals and the CPU. The DSP processing load was
thrown back onto the CPU.

In 1995 CPU power was relatively expensive and rare, so offloading the CPU
work onto a variety of controllers and DSPs made sense. In 2004, we've got
CPU power to literally burn, so there has been a strong trend to simplify
the I/O interfaces and do as much of the processing as possible in the CPU.

There's a parallel with winmodems - as the classic ISA modem of 1996 also
had a DSP and dedicated microprocessor that largely disappeared and was
replaced by motherboard functions.

It's rather like using a Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I
suppose.

Don't knock Winmodem-type modems, they are about the only thing you can buy
these days.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response,

Can't and doesn't happen.

or an increase in glitches and drop-outs?

Far more likely.

I'm not sure how just how much of an AC97-based system is in software.

As much as possible.

Does it dispense with a hardware analogue digital converter at the
input?

No. Nor does it dispense with the digital analog converter at the output.

The canonical sound card of 1995 was composed of a A/D, D/A, simple FM MIDI
sound generator, MIDI I/O ports, a port for a simple analog joystick and an
ISA interface for all of the above. Drop the MIDI and joystick stuff, and
focus on converter and analog audio interface stuff perhaps replicating them
a large number of times, and you have a canonical (multichannel) audio
production card.

By 1999 the I/O interface was PCI, a complex DSP was interposed between the
converters and the PCI interface, the simple FM MIDI was replaced by a
complex DSP-based wave table sound generator, and the MIDI & analog joystick
stuff was still there but USB was beginning to encroach on the analog
joystick interface's territory.

The main difference that the AC97 type on-board designs change is that they
back out as much of the DSP-based processing as possible. The converters and
"world" interfaces are still there, but the PCI interfaces are falling by
the wayside in favor of more highly integrated technologies that tighten the
connection between the peripherals and the CPU. The DSP processing load was
thrown back onto the CPU.

In 1995 CPU power was relatively expensive and rare, so offloading the CPU
work onto a variety of controllers and DSPs made sense. In 2004, we've got
CPU power to literally burn, so there has been a strong trend to simplify
the I/O interfaces and do as much of the processing as possible in the CPU.

There's a parallel with winmodems - as the classic ISA modem of 1996 also
had a DSP and dedicated microprocessor that largely disappeared and was
replaced by motherboard functions.

It's rather like using a Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I
suppose.

Don't knock Winmodem-type modems, they are about the only thing you can buy
these days.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response,

Can't and doesn't happen.

or an increase in glitches and drop-outs?

Far more likely.

I'm not sure how just how much of an AC97-based system is in software.

As much as possible.

Does it dispense with a hardware analogue digital converter at the
input?

No. Nor does it dispense with the digital analog converter at the output.

The canonical sound card of 1995 was composed of a A/D, D/A, simple FM MIDI
sound generator, MIDI I/O ports, a port for a simple analog joystick and an
ISA interface for all of the above. Drop the MIDI and joystick stuff, and
focus on converter and analog audio interface stuff perhaps replicating them
a large number of times, and you have a canonical (multichannel) audio
production card.

By 1999 the I/O interface was PCI, a complex DSP was interposed between the
converters and the PCI interface, the simple FM MIDI was replaced by a
complex DSP-based wave table sound generator, and the MIDI & analog joystick
stuff was still there but USB was beginning to encroach on the analog
joystick interface's territory.

The main difference that the AC97 type on-board designs change is that they
back out as much of the DSP-based processing as possible. The converters and
"world" interfaces are still there, but the PCI interfaces are falling by
the wayside in favor of more highly integrated technologies that tighten the
connection between the peripherals and the CPU. The DSP processing load was
thrown back onto the CPU.

In 1995 CPU power was relatively expensive and rare, so offloading the CPU
work onto a variety of controllers and DSPs made sense. In 2004, we've got
CPU power to literally burn, so there has been a strong trend to simplify
the I/O interfaces and do as much of the processing as possible in the CPU.

There's a parallel with winmodems - as the classic ISA modem of 1996 also
had a DSP and dedicated microprocessor that largely disappeared and was
replaced by motherboard functions.

It's rather like using a Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I
suppose.

Don't knock Winmodem-type modems, they are about the only thing you can buy
these days.

Laurence Payne wrote:

Is the lesser quality a loss of frequency response,

Can't and doesn't happen.

or an increase in glitches and drop-outs?

Far more likely.

I'm not sure how just how much of an AC97-based system is in software.

As much as possible.

Does it dispense with a hardware analogue digital converter at the
input?

No. Nor does it dispense with the digital analog converter at the output.

The canonical sound card of 1995 was composed of a A/D, D/A, simple FM MIDI
sound generator, MIDI I/O ports, a port for a simple analog joystick and an
ISA interface for all of the above. Drop the MIDI and joystick stuff, and
focus on converter and analog audio interface stuff perhaps replicating them
a large number of times, and you have a canonical (multichannel) audio
production card.

By 1999 the I/O interface was PCI, a complex DSP was interposed between the
converters and the PCI interface, the simple FM MIDI was replaced by a
complex DSP-based wave table sound generator, and the MIDI & analog joystick
stuff was still there but USB was beginning to encroach on the analog
joystick interface's territory.

The main difference that the AC97 type on-board designs change is that they
back out as much of the DSP-based processing as possible. The converters and
"world" interfaces are still there, but the PCI interfaces are falling by
the wayside in favor of more highly integrated technologies that tighten the
connection between the peripherals and the CPU. The DSP processing load was
thrown back onto the CPU.

In 1995 CPU power was relatively expensive and rare, so offloading the CPU
work onto a variety of controllers and DSPs made sense. In 2004, we've got
CPU power to literally burn, so there has been a strong trend to simplify
the I/O interfaces and do as much of the processing as possible in the CPU.

There's a parallel with winmodems - as the classic ISA modem of 1996 also
had a DSP and dedicated microprocessor that largely disappeared and was
replaced by motherboard functions.

It's rather like using a Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I
suppose.

Don't knock Winmodem-type modems, they are about the only thing you can buy
these days.

Stu-R wrote:

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

It might be high frequency IM.

I've run into a number of consumer-type sound cards with extreme ( 10%) IM
above 12 KHz. An example would be the Audigy 2 with initial distribution
drivers, when tested with a 18/20 KHz twin tone.

These results are typical of the later days of that phase of the life of
these cards:

http://www.tomshardware.com/video/20...udigy2-10.html

Notice the 1.383 % IM.


This is the *somewhat improved* version. The initial distribution drivers
for the Audigy 2 pushed past 10%. Rule thumb is that if the music has very
strong high frequency content and not much bass or midrange, as little as
0.1% IM can be reliably detected.

Try the most recent drivers, they seem to be far better.

If you're worried about the problem, run the Audio Rightmark program (free!)
with the test parameters modified to do IM with 18 % 20 KHz tones 7 dB down.
If you've got the problem, address it! There's an easy menu for changing the
IM test parameters that works fine in the recent versions. The default
low/high frequency test is not nearly as revealing, as a rule.

Stu-R wrote:

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

It might be high frequency IM.

I've run into a number of consumer-type sound cards with extreme ( 10%) IM
above 12 KHz. An example would be the Audigy 2 with initial distribution
drivers, when tested with a 18/20 KHz twin tone.

These results are typical of the later days of that phase of the life of
these cards:

http://www.tomshardware.com/video/20...udigy2-10.html

Notice the 1.383 % IM.


This is the *somewhat improved* version. The initial distribution drivers
for the Audigy 2 pushed past 10%. Rule thumb is that if the music has very
strong high frequency content and not much bass or midrange, as little as
0.1% IM can be reliably detected.

Try the most recent drivers, they seem to be far better.

If you're worried about the problem, run the Audio Rightmark program (free!)
with the test parameters modified to do IM with 18 % 20 KHz tones 7 dB down.
If you've got the problem, address it! There's an easy menu for changing the
IM test parameters that works fine in the recent versions. The default
low/high frequency test is not nearly as revealing, as a rule.

Stu-R wrote:

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

It might be high frequency IM.

I've run into a number of consumer-type sound cards with extreme ( 10%) IM
above 12 KHz. An example would be the Audigy 2 with initial distribution
drivers, when tested with a 18/20 KHz twin tone.

These results are typical of the later days of that phase of the life of
these cards:

http://www.tomshardware.com/video/20...udigy2-10.html

Notice the 1.383 % IM.


This is the *somewhat improved* version. The initial distribution drivers
for the Audigy 2 pushed past 10%. Rule thumb is that if the music has very
strong high frequency content and not much bass or midrange, as little as
0.1% IM can be reliably detected.

Try the most recent drivers, they seem to be far better.

If you're worried about the problem, run the Audio Rightmark program (free!)
with the test parameters modified to do IM with 18 % 20 KHz tones 7 dB down.
If you've got the problem, address it! There's an easy menu for changing the
IM test parameters that works fine in the recent versions. The default
low/high frequency test is not nearly as revealing, as a rule.

Stu-R wrote:

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

It might be high frequency IM.

I've run into a number of consumer-type sound cards with extreme ( 10%) IM
above 12 KHz. An example would be the Audigy 2 with initial distribution
drivers, when tested with a 18/20 KHz twin tone.

These results are typical of the later days of that phase of the life of
these cards:

http://www.tomshardware.com/video/20...udigy2-10.html

Notice the 1.383 % IM.


This is the *somewhat improved* version. The initial distribution drivers
for the Audigy 2 pushed past 10%. Rule thumb is that if the music has very
strong high frequency content and not much bass or midrange, as little as
0.1% IM can be reliably detected.

Try the most recent drivers, they seem to be far better.

If you're worried about the problem, run the Audio Rightmark program (free!)
with the test parameters modified to do IM with 18 % 20 KHz tones 7 dB down.
If you've got the problem, address it! There's an easy menu for changing the
IM test parameters that works fine in the recent versions. The default
low/high frequency test is not nearly as revealing, as a rule.

Stu-R wrote:

I suppose you could call them glitches and dropouts. The distortion
appears wherever high data rate information is being processed. Such
as high frequency and/or high intensity signals. It sounds like the
onset of clipping in an analogue signal. And discrimination and
character of choral voices is not as good as it might be.

It might be high frequency IM.

I've run into a number of consumer-type sound cards with extreme ( 10%) IM
above 12 KHz. An example would be the Audigy 2 with initial distribution
drivers, when tested with a 18/20 KHz twin tone.

These results are typical of the later days of that phase of the life of
these cards:

http://www.tomshardware.com/video/20...udigy2-10.html

Notice the 1.383 % IM.


This is the *somewhat improved* version. The initial distribution drivers
for the Audigy 2 pushed past 10%. Rule thumb is that if the music has very
strong high frequency content and not much bass or midrange, as little as
0.1% IM can be reliably detected.

Try the most recent drivers, they seem to be far better.

If you're worried about the problem, run the Audio Rightmark program (free!)
with the test parameters modified to do IM with 18 % 20 KHz tones 7 dB down.
If you've got the problem, address it! There's an easy menu for changing the
IM test parameters that works fine in the recent versions. The default
low/high frequency test is not nearly as revealing, as a rule.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:59:08 GMT, Stu-R wrote:


Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.


Is this a very old/underpowered system?

Are you bringing audio in through the Line In port? The Mic input
on SB (and other) cards is just a joke.

It may be your SB is sharing an IRQ with the video card. On older
motherboards this could be guaranteed by installing it in the top pci
slot, next to the video card. Give us a run down of your IRQ
allocations. Is the computer stuffed full of other devices?

What operating system?

A SoundBlaster Live has severe limitations for multitrack work, but
should be more than capable of a simple recording, at quite reasonable
quality. It would be a pity if you invested in a better card, only
to get the same problems.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:59:08 GMT, Stu-R wrote:


Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.


Is this a very old/underpowered system?

Are you bringing audio in through the Line In port? The Mic input
on SB (and other) cards is just a joke.

It may be your SB is sharing an IRQ with the video card. On older
motherboards this could be guaranteed by installing it in the top pci
slot, next to the video card. Give us a run down of your IRQ
allocations. Is the computer stuffed full of other devices?

What operating system?

A SoundBlaster Live has severe limitations for multitrack work, but
should be more than capable of a simple recording, at quite reasonable
quality. It would be a pity if you invested in a better card, only
to get the same problems.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:59:08 GMT, Stu-R wrote:


Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.


Is this a very old/underpowered system?

Are you bringing audio in through the Line In port? The Mic input
on SB (and other) cards is just a joke.

It may be your SB is sharing an IRQ with the video card. On older
motherboards this could be guaranteed by installing it in the top pci
slot, next to the video card. Give us a run down of your IRQ
allocations. Is the computer stuffed full of other devices?

What operating system?

A SoundBlaster Live has severe limitations for multitrack work, but
should be more than capable of a simple recording, at quite reasonable
quality. It would be a pity if you invested in a better card, only
to get the same problems.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:59:08 GMT, Stu-R wrote:


Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.


Is this a very old/underpowered system?

Are you bringing audio in through the Line In port? The Mic input
on SB (and other) cards is just a joke.

It may be your SB is sharing an IRQ with the video card. On older
motherboards this could be guaranteed by installing it in the top pci
slot, next to the video card. Give us a run down of your IRQ
allocations. Is the computer stuffed full of other devices?

What operating system?

A SoundBlaster Live has severe limitations for multitrack work, but
should be more than capable of a simple recording, at quite reasonable
quality. It would be a pity if you invested in a better card, only
to get the same problems.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:59:08 GMT, Stu-R wrote:


Perhaps a sound card with a good buffer might do better. I'm not sure
of which cards, if any, even have a buffer. They seem absent from the
sound card specs.


Is this a very old/underpowered system?

Are you bringing audio in through the Line In port? The Mic input
on SB (and other) cards is just a joke.

It may be your SB is sharing an IRQ with the video card. On older
motherboards this could be guaranteed by installing it in the top pci
slot, next to the video card. Give us a run down of your IRQ
allocations. Is the computer stuffed full of other devices?

What operating system?

A SoundBlaster Live has severe limitations for multitrack work, but
should be more than capable of a simple recording, at quite reasonable
quality. It would be a pity if you invested in a better card, only
to get the same problems.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:47:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's rather like using a Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I
suppose.

Don't knock Winmodem-type modems, they are about the only thing you can buy
these days.

For general use I guess they're OK. But hardware modems ARE still
easily available, and not expensive. I still install them in systems
intended for music use. I know a serious musician SHOULD disable
network cars, modem and anything else unessential before starting a
session. But we don't always remember :-) And I'd rather an
incoming 'phone call didn't cause an audio glitch. It's not a big
problem, and might never happen. But the cost of a hardware modem is
so little more.....

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:47:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's rather like using a Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I
suppose.

Don't knock Winmodem-type modems, they are about the only thing you can buy
these days.

For general use I guess they're OK. But hardware modems ARE still
easily available, and not expensive. I still install them in systems
intended for music use. I know a serious musician SHOULD disable
network cars, modem and anything else unessential before starting a
session. But we don't always remember :-) And I'd rather an
incoming 'phone call didn't cause an audio glitch. It's not a big
problem, and might never happen. But the cost of a hardware modem is
so little more.....

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:47:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's rather like using a Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I
suppose.

Don't knock Winmodem-type modems, they are about the only thing you can buy
these days.

For general use I guess they're OK. But hardware modems ARE still
easily available, and not expensive. I still install them in systems
intended for music use. I know a serious musician SHOULD disable
network cars, modem and anything else unessential before starting a
session. But we don't always remember :-) And I'd rather an
incoming 'phone call didn't cause an audio glitch. It's not a big
problem, and might never happen. But the cost of a hardware modem is
so little more.....

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:47:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's rather like using a Winmodem instead of a proper hardware one I
suppose.

Don't knock Winmodem-type modems, they are about the only thing you can buy
these days.

For general use I guess they're OK. But hardware modems ARE still
easily available, and not expensive. I still install them in systems
intended for music use. I know a serious musician SHOULD disable
network cars, modem and anything else unessential before starting a
session. But we don't always remember :-) And I'd rather an
incoming 'phone call didn't cause an audio glitch. It's not a big
problem, and might never happen. But the cost of a hardware modem is
so little more.....