[pg]

Hello to everyone !

I am here to seek advise from all the gurus here.

I am in the process of building my own intel core-4 machine, and I am
thinking of getting a brand new sound card for it. My current
soundcard, the one in my old machine, is Creative Soundblaster X-Fi
Elite Pro.

My budget for the new sound card is $750, while I can get anther X-Fi
Elite Pro, I do not see the point. What I am looking for is a sound
card that is at least as good as X-Fi Elite Pro, can do input and
output at 48-bits / 384 KHz.

I compose music, and that is a very taxing stuff for sound card. I
need the best sound card that I can afford so I won't have to worry
about anything when I do music composing. I need your advise as to
which sound card I should purchase.

Please help !

Thank you !

[Arny Krueger]

"pg" wrote in message

Hello to everyone !

I am here to seek advise from all the gurus here.

I am in the process of building my own intel core-4
machine, and I am thinking of getting a brand new sound
card for it. My current soundcard, the one in my old
machine, is Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Elite Pro.

My budget for the new sound card is $750, while I can get
anther X-Fi Elite Pro, I do not see the point. What I am
looking for is a sound card that is at least as good as
X-Fi Elite Pro, can do input and output at 48-bits / 384
KHz.

I compose music, and that is a very taxing stuff for
sound card. I need the best sound card that I can afford
so I won't have to worry about anything when I do music
composing. I need your advise as to which sound card I
should purchase.

If you are like the other composers I know, you are a heavy user of
MIDI-generated sounds.

Gaming-type sound cards such as the X-Fi are a good choice for you, because
they generally have the best MIDI synths of most kinds of audio interfaces.

Another option is to use software to generate the musical sounds that you
use for listening to your compositions. These can be as simple or as
complex as you might imagine. AFAIK, software MIDI generators will work with
the simplest, cheapest audio interfaces around.

Bottom line, I really can't see any benefits to an audio interface that
delivers audio at 48 bits and 384 Ksamples per second for your, or any other
audio purpose.

BTW, when you say 384 KHz, do you mean 384 bits per second, or 384 samples
per second?

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 24, 7:42 am, pg wrote:

I am in the process of building my own intel core-4 machine, and I am
thinking of getting a brand new sound card for it. My current
soundcard, the one in my old machine, is Creative Soundblaster X-Fi
Elite Pro.

My budget for the new sound card is $750

If your functional requirements are that of a SoundBlaster - two
channels in and out - on that budget, if you want the best sound
quality, there's no reason to get anything other than a LynxONE or,
for a little more money and expandability, a Lynx L22.

http://www.lynxstudio.com

[Fran Guidry]

On Jan 24, 4:42 am, pg wrote:
Hello to everyone !

I am here to seek advise from all the gurus here.

I am in the process of building my own intel core-4 machine, and I am
thinking of getting a brand new sound card for it. My current
soundcard, the one in my old machine, is Creative Soundblaster X-Fi
Elite Pro.

My budget for the new sound card is $750, while I can get anther X-Fi
Elite Pro, I do not see the point. What I am looking for is a sound
card that is at least as good as X-Fi Elite Pro, can do input and
output at 48-bits / 384 KHz.

I compose music, and that is a very taxing stuff for sound card. I
need the best sound card that I can afford so I won't have to worry
about anything when I do music composing. I need your advise as to
which sound card I should purchase.

Please help !

Thank you !

Please provide a list of converters you've found with 48 bit
capability, then we'll tell you which one to buy.

Fran

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"pg" wrote in message

I am here to seek advise from all the gurus here.

I am in the process of building my own intel core-4
machine, and I am thinking of getting a brand new sound
card for it. My current soundcard, the one in my old
machine, is Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Elite Pro.

My budget for the new sound card is $750, while I can get
anther X-Fi Elite Pro, I do not see the point. What I am
looking for is a sound card that is at least as good as
X-Fi Elite Pro, can do input and output at 48-bits / 384
KHz.

Good luck finding a card with that extreme level of overkill. No card can
yet deliver a genuine 24 bits resolution, and it's extremely unlikely any
will any time soon.
And unless you are using the card to make measurements, (you say it's for
music) why on earth would you need a sampling rate of 384kHz?!!!!!!!!!!
Even dogs can't hear 192kHz frequencies, I'm not sure anything can.


I compose music, and that is a very taxing stuff for
sound card.

Not at all, even your SB X-Fi can manage it, if you have the rest of the
necessary equipment, software, and technical skills.

I need the best sound card that I can afford
so I won't have to worry about anything when I do music
composing. I need your advise as to which sound card I
should purchase.

Bottom line, I really can't see any benefits to an audio interface that
delivers audio at 48 bits and 384 Ksamples per second for your, or any
other
audio purpose.

BTW, when you say 384 KHz, do you mean 384 bits per second, or 384 samples
per second?


He obviously means 8 times 48kHz. 4 times 96kHz, or twice the usual maximum
sample rate of 192kHz IMO.

He's either a totally clueless "spec junkie" or just another troll.

MrT.

[Richard Crowley]

"pg" wrote...
I am in the process of building my own intel core-4 machine,
......
I compose music, and that is a very taxing stuff for sound card. I
need the best sound card that I can afford so I won't have to worry
about anything when I do music composing. I need your advise as to
which sound card I should purchase.

By "core-4" can we assume that you mean "Quad Core"?
(Like an Intel Kentsfield, etc.?)

A Quad-core computer to use to "compose music"?
What is your current computer? What is deficient about it that
makes you think you need a new computer?
What kind of music do you compose that requires a Quad-Core
computer?

What do you mean, *exactly*, by "compose music"?
Are you writing compositions and then printing scores (or lead-
sheets, etc.) for musicians to play with real instruments?
Are you creating MIDI files for sale?
Are you playing your music on a synth (perhaps the one built into
the soundblaster?) and then recording it into WAV or MP3 files?

None of these activities would appear to require even something
as whizzy as your current sound card, much less something that
costs $750. Also none of them would require even an infinetessimal
fraction of the horsepower of a Quad-Core (or even a Dual-Core)
computer.

It sounds like you just have a lot of money in your pocket burning
a hole and you want to buy some new shiny toys,

and I am thinking of getting a brand new sound card for it. My current
soundcard, the one in my old machine, is Creative Soundblaster X-Fi
Elite Pro.

Exactly why did you buy that sound card in the first place?
Which features did it have that you could not have found in some
ordinary sound card? It is not clear why anyone would buy such
a thing?

My budget for the new sound card is $750, while I can get anther
X-Fi Elite Pro, I do not see the point.

And likely most of us "guru"s here don't see the point in even the
Soundblaster X-Fi Elite Pro sound card. You haven't identified
any activity or requirement that would indicate that you need anything
more than a $25 generic white-box sound card.

What I am looking for is a sound card that is at least as good as
X-Fi Elite Pro,

What is it about the X-Fi Elite Pro that is "good"? Soundblaster in
general has the reputation of a high-priced, mediocre performance,
guaudy plastic toy among professional audio users.

can do input and output at 48-bits / 384 KHz.

You cannot be serious. Where did you get those specifications?
Those numbers make you look like a fool and unworthy of any
continued dialog here. If you have some valid reason for thinking
you really need 48-bits and/or 384K sample rate, you'd better
tell us quickly before we all write you off as a troll.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:43:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I am in the process of building my own intel core-4
machine, and I am thinking of getting a brand new sound
card for it. My current soundcard, the one in my old
machine, is Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Elite Pro.

My budget for the new sound card is $750, while I can get
anther X-Fi Elite Pro, I do not see the point. What I am
looking for is a sound card that is at least as good as
X-Fi Elite Pro, can do input and output at 48-bits / 384
KHz.

I compose music, and that is a very taxing stuff for
sound card. I need the best sound card that I can afford
so I won't have to worry about anything when I do music
composing. I need your advise as to which sound card I
should purchase.

Let's stop picking holes in the question, and try to find what he
really needs!

If his method of "composing music" requires considerable computer
power, I think we can assume he uses a sequencer with lots of software
synthesizers/samplers and plenty of plug-in effects. This is one of
the few activities where getting near the cutting-edge of computer
performance CAN be a real advantage, and a quad-core CPU is not a
foolish choice.

He'll need an efficient soundcard with ASIO drivers. He MAY need
multiple inputs and outputs. He MAY need microphone inputs and MAY
prefer these to be integral to the soundcard.

I think he's confusing bits, bit rates and sample rates. Software
samplers generally perform best at 44.1KHz. A modern card will
doubtless have 96KHz and maybe even 192KHz available, but I've yet to
find a need to use them :-)

If he wants a one-line answer - get a RME Fireface 400 or 800. They
cover most needs a home studio might come up with and the company seem
to know what they're doing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message


A Quad-core computer to use to "compose music"?

Yep. I have a few clients like these.

What is your current computer? What is deficient about it
that makes you think you need a new computer?

I understand that if you run the latest-greatest-mega synth/sampler, they
use CPU cycles like there is no tomorrow.

What kind of music do you compose that requires a
Quad-Core computer?

Music with lots of very complex virtual instruments, with lots of EFX.

What do you mean, *exactly*, by "compose music"?

Hopefully, put notes on scores.

Are you writing compositions and then printing scores (or
lead- sheets, etc.) for musicians to play with real
instruments?

That's what my similarly afflicted clients do.

Are you creating MIDI files for sale?

The software will do that, too.

Are you playing your music on a synth (perhaps the one
built into the soundblaster?) and then recording it into WAV or MP3
files?

The software will do that, too.

None of these activities would appear to require even
something as whizzy as your current sound card, much less something
that costs $750. Also none of them would require even an
infinetessimal fraction of the horsepower of a Quad-Core
(or even a Dual-Core) computer.

There are synths and there are synths. Also, if you are writing complex
orchestrations, you can end up running lots of them in parallel.

It sounds like you just have a lot of money in your
pocket burning a hole and you want to buy some new shiny toys,

Could be, or could be that he does not want to fit his music to his
computer.

BTW my clients are pretty happy with machines on the order of 2 GB of RAM
and single or dual core Athlon 64s. But they don't try to press any
limits - they focus on the music.

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 25, 5:27 am, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:
Let's stop picking holes in the question, and try to find what he
really needs!

Exactly! But this is Usenet. It's rare that someone who needs such
basic advice ever asks the right question or gives enough information.
And it's common to ridicule the poster in an attempt to show him that
he didn't ask the right question.

Maybe we'll hear more from him, or maybe not. I think he gets the idea
that this isn't the place to find support for his concept that a high
powered SoundBlaster card is a good choice for serious music
production, and that's a start.

[Earl Kiosterud]

"pg" wrote in message
...
Hello to everyone !

I am here to seek advise from all the gurus here.

I am in the process of building my own intel core-4 machine, and I am
thinking of getting a brand new sound card for it. My current
soundcard, the one in my old machine, is Creative Soundblaster X-Fi
Elite Pro.

My budget for the new sound card is $750, while I can get anther X-Fi
Elite Pro, I do not see the point. What I am looking for is a sound
card that is at least as good as X-Fi Elite Pro, can do input and
output at 48-bits / 384 KHz.

I compose music, and that is a very taxing stuff for sound card. I
need the best sound card that I can afford so I won't have to worry
about anything when I do music composing. I need your advise as to
which sound card I should purchase.

Please help !

Thank you !

pg,

Composing music isn't taxing for a sound card. And contrary to the opinions of many, even
an inexpensive sound card will have very good sound quality. Throwing money at an expensive
one is aiming at the wrong target when trying to improve your music. If you'll need low
latency, then you'll need a soundcard that has WDM or ASIO drivers -- the regular EMM
interface typically used by consumer soundcards, I think, doesn't provide for low latency.
But you still don't have to spend a lot for a high-spec card. You don't need low latency
unless you're using software synths, or doing audio monitoring from the input to the
computer. If you're just recording audio along with your MIDI, latency isn't an issue.

If you'll be doing MIDI, the CPU overhead is relatively low. If it will include
record/playback of audio or software synths, then the CPU overhead can grow, particularly
when you add effects to your audio tracks (reverb, compressors, equalizers, etc), though you
still don't need the latest CPU to do all this stuff, unless you'll be working on quite
large projects (lots of audio tracks with lots of effects plugged into tracks, and/or lots
of software synths). And I mean lots.

If you're doing MIDI, the sound quality of your synths will be the first thing that'll
likely make you cringe.

It's awfully easy to geek out on high specs stuff in this area, and it won't provide one
with the quality seeked (unless one is already convinced it will).

Hope this helps.

--
Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud
www.smokeylake.com

[Laurence Payne]

I think it's established that you're asking in the wrong place. The
guys here are into live recording, PA etc. and know little of (or
choose to look down on) the sort of computer-based music construction
which I think you're talking about.

Try alt.music.home-studio, alt.steinberg.cubase (or user groups for
any of the other high-end sequencer programs.)

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote
A Quad-core computer to use to "compose music"?

Yep. I have a few clients like these.

What is your current computer? What is deficient about it
that makes you think you need a new computer?

I understand that if you run the latest-greatest-mega synth/sampler, they
use CPU cycles like there is no tomorrow.

But are the apps written to take advantage of multi-core?

What kind of music do you compose that requires a
Quad-Core computer?

Music with lots of very complex virtual instruments, with lots of EFX.

What do you mean, *exactly*, by "compose music"?

Hopefully, put notes on scores.

Are you writing compositions and then printing scores (or lead-sheets,
etc.) for musicians to play with real
instruments?

That's what my similarly afflicted clients do.

And that is the kind of "composing music" that requires the
LEAST computing horsepower. I use one of the more
sophisticated music notation apps (Sibelius) and it has
remarkably modest compting requirements. (Especially
compared to any kind of multi-track audio NLE or video
processing, etc.)

Still sounds to me like the OP doesn't know what he needs
and has a fixation with shiny toys. At least from what he
wrote here (which is all we know about him).

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
Laurence Payne wrote:
Let's stop picking holes in the question, and try to find what he
really needs!

Exactly! But this is Usenet. It's rare that someone who needs such
basic advice ever asks the right question or gives enough information.
And it's common to ridicule the poster in an attempt to show him that
he didn't ask the right question.

Maybe we'll hear more from him, or maybe not. I think he gets the idea
that this isn't the place to find support for his concept that a high
powered SoundBlaster card is a good choice for serious music
production, and that's a start.

Of course, since he cross-posted to such a wide variety of news-
groups, he likely doesn't know that "here" is rec.audio.pro.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote
A Quad-core computer to use to "compose music"?

Yep. I have a few clients like these.

What is your current computer? What is deficient about
it that makes you think you need a new computer?

I understand that if you run the latest-greatest-mega
synth/sampler, they use CPU cycles like there is no
tomorrow.

But are the apps written to take advantage of multi-core?

Some say they are.

What kind of music do you compose that requires a
Quad-Core computer?

Music with lots of very complex virtual instruments,
with lots of EFX.

The horsepower gets used when they play their compositions back.

What do you mean, *exactly*, by "compose music"?

Hopefully, put notes on scores.

Are you writing compositions and then printing scores
(or lead-sheets, etc.) for musicians to play with real
instruments?

That's what my similarly afflicted clients do.

And that is the kind of "composing music" that requires
the LEAST computing horsepower. I use one of the more
sophisticated music notation apps (Sibelius) and it has
remarkably modest compting requirements.

I wouldn't expect that the actual process of putting notes on staffs would
take many resources by modern standards.

(Especially
compared to any kind of multi-track audio NLE or video
processing, etc.)

I have a system with a 6GHz dual core processor, and everything but video
editing runs pretty much I/O bound. Video editing, particularly that which
involves rendering or transcoding, can still use whatever CPU you've got and
ask for more.

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
Let's stop picking holes in the question, and try to find what he
really needs!

If his method of "composing music" requires considerable computer
power, I think we can assume he uses a sequencer with lots of software
synthesizers/samplers and plenty of plug-in effects. This is one of
the few activities where getting near the cutting-edge of computer
performance CAN be a real advantage, and a quad-core CPU is not a
foolish choice.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that if he were that
sophisticated, he would have included a few of those facts
in his question.

Also remember that *composing music* doesn't involve the use
of synthisizers, simple or sophisticated. Most of this planet's
great music was *composed* with little more than an old,
rickety piano. Yes, I will be the first to admit that is is very
gratifying to hear your composition played back, bar by bar,
instrument by instrument (or tutti), on a great synthisizer, but it
is not *required* for music composition. And lack of a good
synthisizer cannot be logically argued to "limit" a composer.
A great synthisizer is a "nice to have" at best.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:13:53 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Let's stop picking holes in the question, and try to find what he
really needs!

If his method of "composing music" requires considerable computer
power, I think we can assume he uses a sequencer with lots of software
synthesizers/samplers and plenty of plug-in effects. This is one of
the few activities where getting near the cutting-edge of computer
performance CAN be a real advantage, and a quad-core CPU is not a
foolish choice.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that if he were that
sophisticated, he would have included a few of those facts
in his question.

Also remember that *composing music* doesn't involve the use
of synthisizers, simple or sophisticated. Most of this planet's
great music was *composed* with little more than an old,
rickety piano. Yes, I will be the first to admit that is is very
gratifying to hear your composition played back, bar by bar,
instrument by instrument (or tutti), on a great synthisizer, but it
is not *required* for music composition. And lack of a good
synthisizer cannot be logically argued to "limit" a composer.
A great synthisizer is a "nice to have" at best.


You're starting from the supposition that his question was stupid.
Therefore your responses are mere mockery. You seem to do that quite
a lot round here. Whatever floats your boat :-)

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
You're starting from the supposition that his question was stupid.
Therefore your responses are mere mockery. You seem to do that quite
a lot round here. Whatever floats your boat :-)

And you appear to spend as much time criticizing
other posters as you do actually contributing anything
to the discussions. Guess we know what floats YOUR
boat, as well.

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
You're starting from the supposition that his question was stupid.

OK, Mr. Payne. Explain what is NOT stupid about a request
for "input and output at 48-bits / 384 KHz". And for "music
composition", yet! This should be fascinating.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
You're starting from the supposition that his question was stupid.

OK, Mr. Payne. Explain what is NOT stupid about a request
for "input and output at 48-bits / 384 KHz". And for "music
composition", yet! This should be fascinating.

I strongly recommend reading Kornbluth's story "The Marching Morons,"
with the cars that go 600 miles an hour by virtue of redefining the units.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:30:52 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
You're starting from the supposition that his question was stupid.

OK, Mr. Payne. Explain what is NOT stupid about a request
for "input and output at 48-bits / 384 KHz". And for "music
composition", yet! This should be fascinating.


I have. Read my earlier posts in this thread.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:25:15 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

You're starting from the supposition that his question was stupid.
Therefore your responses are mere mockery. You seem to do that quite
a lot round here. Whatever floats your boat :-)

And you appear to spend as much time criticizing
other posters as you do actually contributing anything
to the discussions. Guess we know what floats YOUR
boat, as well.

I'll take that as "Sorry, I'll try to help rather than mock in future"
shall I? :-)

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Bottom line, I really can't see any benefits to an audio interface that
delivers audio at 48 bits

Does he perhaps mean 2 channels @ 24 bits each ?


and 384 Ksamples per second for your, or any other
audio purpose.

384k sampling is clearly absurd.

Graham

[Paul Stamler]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

Bottom line, I really can't see any benefits to an audio interface that
delivers audio at 48 bits

Does he perhaps mean 2 channels @ 24 bits each ?


and 384 Ksamples per second for your, or any other
audio purpose.

384k sampling is clearly absurd.

But if he's a beginner, he may be getting confused between sampling rate and
bitrate, as in .mp3s.

Peace,
Paul

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Of course, since he cross-posted to such a wide variety of news-
groups, he likely doesn't know that "here" is rec.audio.pro.

Only if that's the group you happen to be reading it from! :-)

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
You're starting from the supposition that his question was stupid.

And if you read his supposed requirements you'd have to say it was!

MrT.

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 25, 12:51 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:

Of course, since he cross-posted to such a wide variety of news-
groups, he likely doesn't know that "here" is rec.audio.pro.

Eeez not my problem.

[pg]

On Jan 25, 4:03 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message



A Quad-core computer to use to "compose music"?

Yep. I have a few clients like these.

What is your current computer? What is deficient about it
that makes you think you need a new computer?

I understand that if you run the latest-greatest-mega synth/sampler, they
use CPU cycles like there is no tomorrow.

What kind of music do you compose that requires a
Quad-Core computer?

Music with lots of very complex virtual instruments, with lots of EFX.

What do you mean, *exactly*, by "compose music"?

Hopefully, put notes on scores.

Are you writing compositions and then printing scores (or
lead- sheets, etc.) for musicians to play with real
instruments?

That's what my similarly afflicted clients do.

Are you creating MIDI files for sale?

The software will do that, too.

Are you playing your music on a synth (perhaps the one
built into the soundblaster?) and then recording it into WAV or MP3
files?

The software will do that, too.

None of these activities would appear to require even
something as whizzy as your current sound card, much less something
that costs $750. Also none of them would require even an
infinetessimal fraction of the horsepower of a Quad-Core
(or even a Dual-Core) computer.

There are synths and there are synths. Also, if you are writing complex
orchestrations, you can end up running lots of them in parallel.

It sounds like you just have a lot of money in your
pocket burning a hole and you want to buy some new shiny toys,

Could be, or could be that he does not want to fit his music to his
computer.

BTW my clients are pretty happy with machines on the order of 2 GB of RAM
and single or dual core Athlon 64s. But they don't try to press any
limits - they focus on the music.

Thanks for all your replies ! I sure learn a lot from them.

Basic thing is - the current machine that I have has 4GB of RAM, an
Intel dual-core CPU, a Sound Blaster X-Fi Elite Pro sound card, and I
am still hitting the ceiling quite a bit !

If one is composing one-channel simple midi - they can use Pentium III
and it'll run fine. But if you start adding channels, and overlapping
the channels on top of other channels - and trying to sync them all -
from orchestra to choir to what-have-yous, I've hit the ceiling so
many times that it's not funny anymore.

That is why I'm building my new machine - with the Quad-core CPU, and
at least 16GB of RAM, and I am looking for a sound card that has the
capacity waaaay passed the Creative X-Fi Elite Pro that I am using
now.

Look, I'm not a computer pro. When my machine starts to bog down, and
error messages starts to appear, I often don't know which is which.

The worst thing is - in the midst of composing, when the inspiration
is there, when the REAL FLOW is there, the machine conks ! It's worse
than a bummer, because inspiration just won't come back !

I'm just tired of the errors. I don't care if it's software, hardware,
or what-ever-ware - I just don't want the errors to interrupt me when
I'm doing the composing.

That is why I am building my new machine - and if you look at the
specs of my new machine to the one I'm currently using - you'll notice
that I give it a minimum of a multiple of 2.

Intel dual-core ---- Intel quad-core
4GB of RAM --- 16GB of RAM

I know that my current soundblaster X-Fi Elite Pro sound card supposed
to be creme de la creme, that is why I post my message here, hoping
the GURUs, the PROs here can help out - to point out to me if there's
anything that can out-perform the X-Fi Elite Pro.

And you did !

Thanks to you all, now I'm looking at several brand names that I'm
never know and I'll sure to check them out !

Thank you all again ! You're all very helpful, including those
skeptical ones !

Danke ! Gracias ! Thank you ! Xie Xie ! Merci Beaucoup ! Arigato !

[Eeyore]

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:

Bottom line, I really can't see any benefits to an audio interface that
delivers audio at 48 bits

Does he perhaps mean 2 channels @ 24 bits each ?

and 384 Ksamples per second for your, or any other
audio purpose.

384k sampling is clearly absurd.

But if he's a beginner, he may be getting confused between sampling rate and
bitrate, as in .mp3s.

This is true.

Graham

[Richard Crowley]

"Eeyore" wrote ...
Paul Stamler wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
Bottom line, I really can't see any benefits to an audio
interface that delivers audio at 48 bits

Does he perhaps mean 2 channels @ 24 bits each ?

and 384 Ksamples per second for your, or any other
audio purpose.

384k sampling is clearly absurd.

But if he's a beginner, he may be getting confused between
sampling rate and bitrate, as in .mp3s.

This is true.

Well, maybe. Note that 384k is 2x 192k
(or 4x 96k) which are all standard sampling
rates. OTOH 384k is NOT a standard bit-
rate for MP3.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Well, maybe. Note that 384k is 2x 192k
(or 4x 96k) which are all standard sampling
rates. OTOH 384k is NOT a standard bit-
rate for MP3.

Exactly, something I already pointed out.
And the fact that the OP hasn't been back only adds more weight to it being
a troll IMO.

MrT.

[Paul Stamler]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Eeyore" wrote ...
Paul Stamler wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
Bottom line, I really can't see any benefits to an audio
interface that delivers audio at 48 bits

Does he perhaps mean 2 channels @ 24 bits each ?

and 384 Ksamples per second for your, or any other
audio purpose.

384k sampling is clearly absurd.

But if he's a beginner, he may be getting confused between
sampling rate and bitrate, as in .mp3s.

This is true.

Well, maybe. Note that 384k is 2x 192k
(or 4x 96k) which are all standard sampling
rates. OTOH 384k is NOT a standard bit-
rate for MP3.

It is, however, 3x 128k, which *is* a standard .mp3 bitrate.

Peace,
Paul

[Mr.T]

"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
...
It is, however, 3x 128k, which *is* a standard .mp3 bitrate.

But can any MP3 player handle 48bit files? (his other "requirement" :-)

MrT.

[pg]

On Jan 26, 2:51 am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message

...

It is, however, 3x 128k, which *is* a standard .mp3 bitrate.

But can any MP3 player handle 48bit files? (his other "requirement" :-)

MrT.

I am simply looking into ways to make my music sounds more real.

Thank you !

[Mr.T]

"pg" wrote in message
...
But can any MP3 player handle 48bit files? (his other "requirement" :-)

I am simply looking into ways to make my music sounds more real.

I suggest you start with your speakers then, and forget all the bull****.
Or if your music is mainly sampled synth or sounds, get a better sound
library.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"pg" wrote in message

On Jan 26, 2:51 am, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message

...

It is, however, 3x 128k, which *is* a standard .mp3
bitrate.

But can any MP3 player handle 48bit files? (his other
"requirement" :-)

MrT.

I am simply looking into ways to make my music sounds
more real.

Look elsewhere. If your samples don't sound real, then get better samples.

[Richard Crowley]

"pg" wrote ...
I am simply looking into ways to make my music sounds more real.

Then spend your $$$$ on better samples.
Or spend your $$$$ on hiring real musicians.

[Randy Yates]

"Richard Crowley" writes:

"pg" wrote ...
I am simply looking into ways to make my music sounds more real.

Then spend your $$$$ on better samples.
Or spend your $$$$ on hiring real musicians.

I vote for the latter. Look at where it got Electric Light Orchestra.
--
% Randy Yates % "Rollin' and riding and slippin' and
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % sliding, it's magic."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Living' Thing', *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Ghod]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
You're starting from the supposition that his question was stupid.

OK, Mr. Payne. Explain what is NOT stupid about a request
for "input and output at 48-bits / 384 KHz". And for "music
composition", yet! This should be fascinating.

I strongly recommend reading Kornbluth's story "The Marching Morons,"
with the cars that go 600 miles an hour by virtue of redefining the units.

One of my all time favorite stories! It's funny that you should mention it
now...my wife brought it up the other day...probably has to do with all the
brilliant people we meet daily.