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

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

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

While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias were not
true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would be the same or
better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias were not
true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would be the same or
better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias were not
true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would be the same or
better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias were not
true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would be the same or
better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

OK, OK. I know that The MIA won't get it's full 24 bits of dynamic
range, but it's a 24 bit card, so it can capture more than the Santa
Cruz, because the Cruz won't capture all 16 bits of its theoretical
capability either. My point was simply that it's much easier to
capture all the dynamics of vinyl when recording with 24 bits (but
really 17 or so, I guess) of headroom rather than 16 (but really what?
12 bits or so?). I guess then my observations of better dynamics
comparison involved other parts of the system as well, like the
drivers. With the MIA, I use the PureWave drivers which bypass the
Windows kernel mixer whereas the Cruz used the WDM drivers. Whatever
the case may be, the MIA records the same vinyl with much better
dynamics than the Cruz. It just does. I thought it was due to the
cards capability, and I still think that has somethingto do with it,
but perhaps there's other aspects that would contribute to the better
recordings on the MIA.

CD

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

OK, OK. I know that The MIA won't get it's full 24 bits of dynamic
range, but it's a 24 bit card, so it can capture more than the Santa
Cruz, because the Cruz won't capture all 16 bits of its theoretical
capability either. My point was simply that it's much easier to
capture all the dynamics of vinyl when recording with 24 bits (but
really 17 or so, I guess) of headroom rather than 16 (but really what?
12 bits or so?). I guess then my observations of better dynamics
comparison involved other parts of the system as well, like the
drivers. With the MIA, I use the PureWave drivers which bypass the
Windows kernel mixer whereas the Cruz used the WDM drivers. Whatever
the case may be, the MIA records the same vinyl with much better
dynamics than the Cruz. It just does. I thought it was due to the
cards capability, and I still think that has somethingto do with it,
but perhaps there's other aspects that would contribute to the better
recordings on the MIA.

CD

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

OK, OK. I know that The MIA won't get it's full 24 bits of dynamic
range, but it's a 24 bit card, so it can capture more than the Santa
Cruz, because the Cruz won't capture all 16 bits of its theoretical
capability either. My point was simply that it's much easier to
capture all the dynamics of vinyl when recording with 24 bits (but
really 17 or so, I guess) of headroom rather than 16 (but really what?
12 bits or so?). I guess then my observations of better dynamics
comparison involved other parts of the system as well, like the
drivers. With the MIA, I use the PureWave drivers which bypass the
Windows kernel mixer whereas the Cruz used the WDM drivers. Whatever
the case may be, the MIA records the same vinyl with much better
dynamics than the Cruz. It just does. I thought it was due to the
cards capability, and I still think that has somethingto do with it,
but perhaps there's other aspects that would contribute to the better
recordings on the MIA.

CD

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

OK, OK. I know that The MIA won't get it's full 24 bits of dynamic
range, but it's a 24 bit card, so it can capture more than the Santa
Cruz, because the Cruz won't capture all 16 bits of its theoretical
capability either. My point was simply that it's much easier to
capture all the dynamics of vinyl when recording with 24 bits (but
really 17 or so, I guess) of headroom rather than 16 (but really what?
12 bits or so?). I guess then my observations of better dynamics
comparison involved other parts of the system as well, like the
drivers. With the MIA, I use the PureWave drivers which bypass the
Windows kernel mixer whereas the Cruz used the WDM drivers. Whatever
the case may be, the MIA records the same vinyl with much better
dynamics than the Cruz. It just does. I thought it was due to the
cards capability, and I still think that has somethingto do with it,
but perhaps there's other aspects that would contribute to the better
recordings on the MIA.

CD

Codifus wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

OK, OK. I know that The MIA won't get it's full 24 bits of dynamic
range, but it's a 24 bit card, so it can capture more than the Santa
Cruz, because the Cruz won't capture all 16 bits of its theoretical
capability either.

That's what I said.

My point was simply that it's much easier to
capture all the dynamics of vinyl when recording with 24 bits (but
really 17 or so, I guess) of headroom rather than 16 (but really what?
12 bits or so?).

It's easirer to work with the wider dynamic range card, but setting levels
right isn't that hard.

I guess then my observations of better dynamics
comparison involved other parts of the system as well, like the
drivers.

Hard to tell.

With the MIA, I use the PureWave drivers which bypass the
Windows kernel mixer whereas the Cruz used the WDM drivers. Whatever
the case may be, the MIA records the same vinyl with much better
dynamics than the Cruz.

Ever try a level-matched, time-synched, bias controlled listening test?

Just record the same disc with each card, do a nice job of editing the
starts and stops, match the levels of the two files carefully, and then use
one of the comparators you can download for free from www.pcabx.com .

It just does.

I question that, for the stated reasons.

I thought it was due to the
cards capability, and I still think that has something do with it,
but perhaps there's other aspects that would contribute to the better
recordings on the MIA.

You might want to try a really tight listening test, and see what you find.

Codifus wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

OK, OK. I know that The MIA won't get it's full 24 bits of dynamic
range, but it's a 24 bit card, so it can capture more than the Santa
Cruz, because the Cruz won't capture all 16 bits of its theoretical
capability either.

That's what I said.

My point was simply that it's much easier to
capture all the dynamics of vinyl when recording with 24 bits (but
really 17 or so, I guess) of headroom rather than 16 (but really what?
12 bits or so?).

It's easirer to work with the wider dynamic range card, but setting levels
right isn't that hard.

I guess then my observations of better dynamics
comparison involved other parts of the system as well, like the
drivers.

Hard to tell.

With the MIA, I use the PureWave drivers which bypass the
Windows kernel mixer whereas the Cruz used the WDM drivers. Whatever
the case may be, the MIA records the same vinyl with much better
dynamics than the Cruz.

Ever try a level-matched, time-synched, bias controlled listening test?

Just record the same disc with each card, do a nice job of editing the
starts and stops, match the levels of the two files carefully, and then use
one of the comparators you can download for free from www.pcabx.com .

It just does.

I question that, for the stated reasons.

I thought it was due to the
cards capability, and I still think that has something do with it,
but perhaps there's other aspects that would contribute to the better
recordings on the MIA.

You might want to try a really tight listening test, and see what you find.

Codifus wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

OK, OK. I know that The MIA won't get it's full 24 bits of dynamic
range, but it's a 24 bit card, so it can capture more than the Santa
Cruz, because the Cruz won't capture all 16 bits of its theoretical
capability either.

That's what I said.

My point was simply that it's much easier to
capture all the dynamics of vinyl when recording with 24 bits (but
really 17 or so, I guess) of headroom rather than 16 (but really what?
12 bits or so?).

It's easirer to work with the wider dynamic range card, but setting levels
right isn't that hard.

I guess then my observations of better dynamics
comparison involved other parts of the system as well, like the
drivers.

Hard to tell.

With the MIA, I use the PureWave drivers which bypass the
Windows kernel mixer whereas the Cruz used the WDM drivers. Whatever
the case may be, the MIA records the same vinyl with much better
dynamics than the Cruz.

Ever try a level-matched, time-synched, bias controlled listening test?

Just record the same disc with each card, do a nice job of editing the
starts and stops, match the levels of the two files carefully, and then use
one of the comparators you can download for free from www.pcabx.com .

It just does.

I question that, for the stated reasons.

I thought it was due to the
cards capability, and I still think that has something do with it,
but perhaps there's other aspects that would contribute to the better
recordings on the MIA.

You might want to try a really tight listening test, and see what you find.

Codifus wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Codifus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

OK, OK. I know that The MIA won't get it's full 24 bits of dynamic
range, but it's a 24 bit card, so it can capture more than the Santa
Cruz, because the Cruz won't capture all 16 bits of its theoretical
capability either.

That's what I said.

My point was simply that it's much easier to
capture all the dynamics of vinyl when recording with 24 bits (but
really 17 or so, I guess) of headroom rather than 16 (but really what?
12 bits or so?).

It's easirer to work with the wider dynamic range card, but setting levels
right isn't that hard.

I guess then my observations of better dynamics
comparison involved other parts of the system as well, like the
drivers.

Hard to tell.

With the MIA, I use the PureWave drivers which bypass the
Windows kernel mixer whereas the Cruz used the WDM drivers. Whatever
the case may be, the MIA records the same vinyl with much better
dynamics than the Cruz.

Ever try a level-matched, time-synched, bias controlled listening test?

Just record the same disc with each card, do a nice job of editing the
starts and stops, match the levels of the two files carefully, and then use
one of the comparators you can download for free from www.pcabx.com .

It just does.

I question that, for the stated reasons.

I thought it was due to the
cards capability, and I still think that has something do with it,
but perhaps there's other aspects that would contribute to the better
recordings on the MIA.

You might want to try a really tight listening test, and see what you find.

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html


http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230

Total: $308

DMX 6fire $222.04 per
http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...E_Sou nd_Card

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html


http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230

Total: $308

DMX 6fire $222.04 per
http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...E_Sou nd_Card

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html


http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230

Total: $308

DMX 6fire $222.04 per
http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...E_Sou nd_Card

Jimmy The Clam wrote:
While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html


http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230

Total: $308

DMX 6fire $222.04 per
http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...E_Sou nd_Card

When I say they are the same price, I mean I can get them for about the same
price.
While I apperciate your throughness Arny, I can buy the DMX6 all day long on
EBay for $199 and the PP-2 for $99 and the MiaMIDI for between $75 and $100.
So, now that we are back to the solutions being about the same price, any
thoughts between the two?

Thanks.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html


http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230

Total: $308

DMX 6fire $222.04 per

http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...E_Sou nd_Card

When I say they are the same price, I mean I can get them for about the same
price.
While I apperciate your throughness Arny, I can buy the DMX6 all day long on
EBay for $199 and the PP-2 for $99 and the MiaMIDI for between $75 and $100.
So, now that we are back to the solutions being about the same price, any
thoughts between the two?

Thanks.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html


http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230

Total: $308

DMX 6fire $222.04 per

http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...E_Sou nd_Card

When I say they are the same price, I mean I can get them for about the same
price.
While I apperciate your throughness Arny, I can buy the DMX6 all day long on
EBay for $199 and the PP-2 for $99 and the MiaMIDI for between $75 and $100.
So, now that we are back to the solutions being about the same price, any
thoughts between the two?

Thanks.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html


http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230

Total: $308

DMX 6fire $222.04 per

http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...E_Sou nd_Card

When I say they are the same price, I mean I can get them for about the same
price.
While I apperciate your throughness Arny, I can buy the DMX6 all day long on
EBay for $199 and the PP-2 for $99 and the MiaMIDI for between $75 and $100.
So, now that we are back to the solutions being about the same price, any
thoughts between the two?

Thanks.


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
While we are on the subject of the dynamic range of vinyl...

If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?

Both options are about the same price.

http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm

$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html


http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php

$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230

Total: $308

DMX 6fire $222.04 per

http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...E_Sou nd_Card

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

Yep S/N will be inferior not frequency response. As Arny already pointed
out, you lose 40 dB dynamic range going the software route, mostly at the
low end. The best soundcards available have around 100dB S/N, and the best
Phono pre-amps have more than 80dB. You do the math.
Of course your records will probably be the limiting factor in any case.

I'd use a good pre-amp with your TB SC, which already has superior
performance to any vinyl record available.
(except over 24 kHz maybe, but you are going to CD right?)
Use any extra money for a top notch cartridge which will make *FAR* more
difference than the soundcard.

TonyP.

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

Yep S/N will be inferior not frequency response. As Arny already pointed
out, you lose 40 dB dynamic range going the software route, mostly at the
low end. The best soundcards available have around 100dB S/N, and the best
Phono pre-amps have more than 80dB. You do the math.
Of course your records will probably be the limiting factor in any case.

I'd use a good pre-amp with your TB SC, which already has superior
performance to any vinyl record available.
(except over 24 kHz maybe, but you are going to CD right?)
Use any extra money for a top notch cartridge which will make *FAR* more
difference than the soundcard.

TonyP.

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

Yep S/N will be inferior not frequency response. As Arny already pointed
out, you lose 40 dB dynamic range going the software route, mostly at the
low end. The best soundcards available have around 100dB S/N, and the best
Phono pre-amps have more than 80dB. You do the math.
Of course your records will probably be the limiting factor in any case.

I'd use a good pre-amp with your TB SC, which already has superior
performance to any vinyl record available.
(except over 24 kHz maybe, but you are going to CD right?)
Use any extra money for a top notch cartridge which will make *FAR* more
difference than the soundcard.

TonyP.

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

Yep S/N will be inferior not frequency response. As Arny already pointed
out, you lose 40 dB dynamic range going the software route, mostly at the
low end. The best soundcards available have around 100dB S/N, and the best
Phono pre-amps have more than 80dB. You do the math.
Of course your records will probably be the limiting factor in any case.

I'd use a good pre-amp with your TB SC, which already has superior
performance to any vinyl record available.
(except over 24 kHz maybe, but you are going to CD right?)
Use any extra money for a top notch cartridge which will make *FAR* more
difference than the soundcard.

TonyP.

Thank you very much TonyP!
That is very helpful.
The trouble with all of this is trying to decide where to spend the money
where you notice the difference.


JTC



"TonyP" wrote in message
. ..

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

Yep S/N will be inferior not frequency response. As Arny already pointed
out, you lose 40 dB dynamic range going the software route, mostly at the
low end. The best soundcards available have around 100dB S/N, and the best
Phono pre-amps have more than 80dB. You do the math.
Of course your records will probably be the limiting factor in any case.

I'd use a good pre-amp with your TB SC, which already has superior
performance to any vinyl record available.
(except over 24 kHz maybe, but you are going to CD right?)
Use any extra money for a top notch cartridge which will make *FAR* more
difference than the soundcard.

TonyP.

Thank you very much TonyP!
That is very helpful.
The trouble with all of this is trying to decide where to spend the money
where you notice the difference.


JTC



"TonyP" wrote in message
. ..

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

Yep S/N will be inferior not frequency response. As Arny already pointed
out, you lose 40 dB dynamic range going the software route, mostly at the
low end. The best soundcards available have around 100dB S/N, and the best
Phono pre-amps have more than 80dB. You do the math.
Of course your records will probably be the limiting factor in any case.

I'd use a good pre-amp with your TB SC, which already has superior
performance to any vinyl record available.
(except over 24 kHz maybe, but you are going to CD right?)
Use any extra money for a top notch cartridge which will make *FAR* more
difference than the soundcard.

TonyP.

Thank you very much TonyP!
That is very helpful.
The trouble with all of this is trying to decide where to spend the money
where you notice the difference.


JTC



"TonyP" wrote in message
. ..

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

Yep S/N will be inferior not frequency response. As Arny already pointed
out, you lose 40 dB dynamic range going the software route, mostly at the
low end. The best soundcards available have around 100dB S/N, and the best
Phono pre-amps have more than 80dB. You do the math.
Of course your records will probably be the limiting factor in any case.

I'd use a good pre-amp with your TB SC, which already has superior
performance to any vinyl record available.
(except over 24 kHz maybe, but you are going to CD right?)
Use any extra money for a top notch cartridge which will make *FAR* more
difference than the soundcard.

TonyP.

Thank you very much TonyP!
That is very helpful.
The trouble with all of this is trying to decide where to spend the money
where you notice the difference.


JTC



"TonyP" wrote in message
. ..

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

Yep S/N will be inferior not frequency response. As Arny already pointed
out, you lose 40 dB dynamic range going the software route, mostly at the
low end. The best soundcards available have around 100dB S/N, and the best
Phono pre-amps have more than 80dB. You do the math.
Of course your records will probably be the limiting factor in any case.

I'd use a good pre-amp with your TB SC, which already has superior
performance to any vinyl record available.
(except over 24 kHz maybe, but you are going to CD right?)
Use any extra money for a top notch cartridge which will make *FAR* more
difference than the soundcard.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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

Close to 15 but yes, about 2 or 3 less than the Mia.

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

Telarc may disagree, but even then, their 1812 on vinyl had less than that.

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

And it's not hard to get very close when you can easily redo it if you are
not.

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

Please provide details of *ANY* TT/cartridge/pre-amp combination that will
give more than 90dB with the stylus up?
*VERY* few will give as much as the TB SC, and only for a few orders of
magnitude more in price. As for the records, FORGET it.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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

Close to 15 but yes, about 2 or 3 less than the Mia.

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

Telarc may disagree, but even then, their 1812 on vinyl had less than that.

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

And it's not hard to get very close when you can easily redo it if you are
not.

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

Please provide details of *ANY* TT/cartridge/pre-amp combination that will
give more than 90dB with the stylus up?
*VERY* few will give as much as the TB SC, and only for a few orders of
magnitude more in price. As for the records, FORGET it.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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

Close to 15 but yes, about 2 or 3 less than the Mia.

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

Telarc may disagree, but even then, their 1812 on vinyl had less than that.

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

And it's not hard to get very close when you can easily redo it if you are
not.

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

Please provide details of *ANY* TT/cartridge/pre-amp combination that will
give more than 90dB with the stylus up?
*VERY* few will give as much as the TB SC, and only for a few orders of
magnitude more in price. As for the records, FORGET it.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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

Close to 15 but yes, about 2 or 3 less than the Mia.

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

Telarc may disagree, but even then, their 1812 on vinyl had less than that.

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

And it's not hard to get very close when you can easily redo it if you are
not.

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

Please provide details of *ANY* TT/cartridge/pre-amp combination that will
give more than 90dB with the stylus up?
*VERY* few will give as much as the TB SC, and only for a few orders of
magnitude more in price. As for the records, FORGET it.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?
Both options are about the same price.
http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm
$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html
http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php
$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230
Total: $308
DMX 6fire $222.04 per

http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...io_DMX6FIRE_So
und_Card


Since he already has a TBSC, I put my money on the TBSC/NAD beating, or
equal to the DMX6.
Extra cost $129 Vs $222.

Both the above implementations will require better level settings than the
Mia/NAD combination by a few dB.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?
Both options are about the same price.
http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm
$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html
http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php
$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230
Total: $308
DMX 6fire $222.04 per

http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...io_DMX6FIRE_So
und_Card


Since he already has a TBSC, I put my money on the TBSC/NAD beating, or
equal to the DMX6.
Extra cost $129 Vs $222.

Both the above implementations will require better level settings than the
Mia/NAD combination by a few dB.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?
Both options are about the same price.
http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm
$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html
http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php
$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230
Total: $308
DMX 6fire $222.04 per

http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...io_DMX6FIRE_So
und_Card


Since he already has a TBSC, I put my money on the TBSC/NAD beating, or
equal to the DMX6.
Extra cost $129 Vs $222.

Both the above implementations will require better level settings than the
Mia/NAD combination by a few dB.

TonyP.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Jimmy The Clam wrote:
If I pare up a MiaMIDI (I was thinking that the older non-MIDI Mias
were not true 24bit) with an NAD PP-2 do you think the results would
be the same or better (or worse) than the DMX 6Fire?
Both options are about the same price.
http://www.nadelectronics.com/hifi_a...p2_framset.htm
$129 per http://www.yawaonline.com/nadpp1phonpr.html
http://www.echoaudio.com/Products/MiaMIDI/index.php
$179 http://www.cdbm.com/shop/detail.cgi?id=100230
Total: $308
DMX 6fire $222.04 per

http://www.epinions.com/pr-TerraTec_...io_DMX6FIRE_So
und_Card


Since he already has a TBSC, I put my money on the TBSC/NAD beating, or
equal to the DMX6.
Extra cost $129 Vs $222.

Both the above implementations will require better level settings than the
Mia/NAD combination by a few dB.

TonyP.

"Jimmy The Clam" wrote in message
...
When I say they are the same price, I mean I can get them for about the
same
price.
While I apperciate your throughness Arny, I can buy the DMX6 all day long
on
EBay for $199 and the PP-2 for $99 and the MiaMIDI for between $75 and
$100.
So, now that we are back to the solutions being about the same price, any
thoughts between the two?

Yep, if YOUR cost is the same, then it's a no brainer.

TonyP.

"Jimmy The Clam" wrote in message
...
When I say they are the same price, I mean I can get them for about the
same
price.
While I apperciate your throughness Arny, I can buy the DMX6 all day long
on
EBay for $199 and the PP-2 for $99 and the MiaMIDI for between $75 and
$100.
So, now that we are back to the solutions being about the same price, any
thoughts between the two?

Yep, if YOUR cost is the same, then it's a no brainer.

TonyP.

"Jimmy The Clam" wrote in message
...
When I say they are the same price, I mean I can get them for about the
same
price.
While I apperciate your throughness Arny, I can buy the DMX6 all day long
on
EBay for $199 and the PP-2 for $99 and the MiaMIDI for between $75 and
$100.
So, now that we are back to the solutions being about the same price, any
thoughts between the two?

Yep, if YOUR cost is the same, then it's a no brainer.

TonyP.