Hi !

I've questions about few cards (in 2 different applications).

The 1st is the choice between:
- Terratec - Phase 22
- M-audio - Audiophile 2496 (just classical as I know :-)
- Marian - MarcX
- Audiotrack - Juli@
- Echo Digital Audio - Mia MIDI

My most important requirements:
- windows drivers quality and stability (no drops and jitter)
- flexibility in installtion (no hardware troubles)
- willingest with 2 balanced outputs and 2 balanced inputs
- SPDIF IN (without any hardware resampling as in Creative products!)
and SPDIF OUT will be very nice
- drivers for Apple as very nice (useful in the future maybe)

And the 2nd choice:
- ESI - Wavetreminal 192xxxx (which one, and why?)
- Audiotrack - Maya 1010
Most requirements:
- windows drivers quality and stability
- flexibility in installation
- a few analog inputs (10, admissible to 4) and 1 stereo outputs (or
more)
- practical verified SPDIF IN and OUT links required
- Apple drivers very nice

Do You know any of this devices and what do You mean about above
choices ? The real expirence is valuable for me... Could You advice
me ?

Thanks a lot, regards!
Rob

wrote in message

Hi !

I've questions about few cards (in 2 different applications).

The 1st is the choice between:

- Terratec - Phase 22

2 balanced inputs, outputs ????

- M-audio - Audiophile 2496 (just classical as I know :-)

unbalanced outputs and unbalanced inputs RCA jacks

- Marian - MarcX

???????

- Audiotrack - Juli@

???????

- Echo Digital Audio - Mia MIDI

unbalanced outputs and unbalanced inputs on TRS jacks.

wrote in message

Hi !

I've questions about few cards (in 2 different applications).

The 1st is the choice between:

- Terratec - Phase 22

2 balanced inputs, outputs ????

- M-audio - Audiophile 2496 (just classical as I know :-)

unbalanced outputs and unbalanced inputs RCA jacks

- Marian - MarcX

???????

- Audiotrack - Juli@

???????

- Echo Digital Audio - Mia MIDI

unbalanced outputs and unbalanced inputs on TRS jacks.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:27:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

unbalanced outputs and unbalanced inputs RCA jacks

Yes, I know all these details... But:
"The real expirence is valuable for me... "
- it means drivers expirience, Your subjective feeling and so on

Regard, Rob

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:27:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

unbalanced outputs and unbalanced inputs RCA jacks

Yes, I know all these details... But:
"The real expirence is valuable for me... "
- it means drivers expirience, Your subjective feeling and so on

Regard, Rob

wrote in message

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:27:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

- Echo Digital Audio - Mia MIDI

unbalanced outputs and unbalanced inputs on TRS jacks.


and... balanced inputs/outputs as I know ?

Get out a signal source and apply it individually to the tip and ring on the
inputs. The ring is logically disconnected from the output of the card.

Then fire up some music and measure the signal on the tip and ring of the
outputs. The ring is connected to ground through a resistor, IOW standard
"impedance balanced".

Now repeat this on a DAL Card Deluxe or a LynxTWO and note that all tips and
rings are truly active.

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:27:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

- Echo Digital Audio - Mia MIDI

unbalanced outputs and unbalanced inputs on TRS jacks.


and... balanced inputs/outputs as I know ?

regards, Rob

wrote in message

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:23:50 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:27:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

- Echo Digital Audio - Mia MIDI

Get out a signal source and apply it individually to the tip and
ring on the inputs. The ring is logically disconnected from the
output of the card.

Then fire up some music and measure the signal on the tip and ring
of the outputs. The ring is connected to ground through a resistor,
IOW standard "impedance balanced".

are You _really_sure_ ?

Been there, done that.

it is not fair, that manufacturer is the liar

It's not unusual. Check out the Midiman Delta 44 and Delta 66, for
additional examples.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:23:50 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 17:27:26 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

- Echo Digital Audio - Mia MIDI

Get out a signal source and apply it individually to the tip and ring on the
inputs. The ring is logically disconnected from the output of the card.

Then fire up some music and measure the signal on the tip and ring of the
outputs. The ring is connected to ground through a resistor, IOW standard
"impedance balanced".

are You _really_sure_ ?
it is not fair, that manufacturer is the lier

Regards, Rob

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:41:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's not unusual. Check out the Midiman Delta 44 and Delta 66, for
additional examples.

it's sad... I know this examples (the same as you wrote about the Mia)
but what about Delta 1010 ? is it the same lie ??? i hope it isn't
!!!

Best regards, Rob

wrote in message

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:41:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It's not unusual. Check out the Midiman Delta 44 and Delta 66, for
additional examples.

it's sad... I know this examples (the same as you wrote about the Mia)
but what about Delta 1010 ? is it the same lie ??? i hope it isn't
!!!

Delta 1010 has true balanced inputs, but impedance balanced outputs.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:40:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Delta 1010 has true balanced inputs, but impedance balanced outputs.

thanks, I understand
well, outputs aren't as critical as inputs...
therefore I mean this solution is acceptable for me

best regards, Rob

In article writes:

Then fire up some music and measure the signal on the tip and ring of the
outputs. The ring is connected to ground through a resistor, IOW standard
"impedance balanced".

are You _really_sure_ ?
it is not fair, that manufacturer is the lier

No lie. The definition of balanced is that the two output leads
present the same impedance to ground when connected to a differential
input. There is no requirement that a balanced output have voltage on
both leads.

The extra bonus for free is that there's no doubt which lead is hot.
It's the one with the signal.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

In article writes:

Then fire up some music and measure the signal on the tip and ring of the
outputs. The ring is connected to ground through a resistor, IOW standard
"impedance balanced".

are You _really_sure_ ?
it is not fair, that manufacturer is the lier

No lie. The definition of balanced is that the two output leads
present the same impedance to ground when connected to a differential
input. There is no requirement that a balanced output have voltage on
both leads.

Well..... it was always my understanding that balanced meant an inphase and outphase
signal of equal polarity.


The extra bonus for free is that there's no doubt which lead is hot.
It's the one with the signal.

'Impedance balanced' is a cheap cheat IMHO.

A superior alternative requiring just a few more resistors is 'ground sensing', where the
outphase terminal is connected back into the 'feedback loop' which allows such a single
ended stage to 'compensate' for earth loopy problems.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:
Mike Rivers says:

No lie. The definition of balanced is that the two output leads
present the same impedance to ground when connected to a differential
input. There is no requirement that a balanced output have voltage on
both leads.

Well..... it was always my understanding that balanced meant an inphase and outphase
signal of equal polarity.

I assume that's a typo for "opposite polarity."

BUT, that's not what you get from a transformer-coupled output with no center
tap. A transformer-coupled output gives you a single output that is not
referenced to ground at all!

If you ground a center tap so you have a ground reference, you DO get two
opposing signals of opposite polarity. And most "active balanced" circuits
are that way.

The extra bonus for free is that there's no doubt which lead is hot.
It's the one with the signal.

'Impedance balanced' is a cheap cheat IMHO.

A superior alternative requiring just a few more resistors is 'ground sensing', where the
outphase terminal is connected back into the 'feedback loop' which allows such a single
ended stage to 'compensate' for earth loopy problems.

There are just too damn many things out there that call themselves "balanced."
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Pooh Bear wrote:
Well..... it was always my understanding that balanced meant an inphase and outphase
signal of equal polarity.

You mean a two signals which are in phase but out of polarity? Actually,
that's not even technically correct.

How about two signals whose voltages are the same magnitude but opposite
signs?

I thought that for quite some time as well. It's easy to think that
the word "balanced" applies to the signals, meaning that they are
equal an opposite. But actually "balanced" applies to the impedence
of the input the signal is driving. As long as the two impedences
match, then the noise picked up by the cabling is canceled out, because
the *noise* is balanced in that first sense, i.e. the sense of two
signals that match up (almost) exactly.

Anyway, since the impedences are the same for the two halves, all
that matters is that the two signals add up to be the signal that
is desired. You could have one with no voltage, and the other with
the exact desired signal. Or you could have equal and opposite.
Or, you could have a constant 100 Hz sine wave on one, and on the
other the difference between the desired signal and the sine wave. :-)

- Logan

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Mike Rivers says:

No lie. The definition of balanced is that the two output leads
present the same impedance to ground when connected to a differential
input. There is no requirement that a balanced output have voltage on
both leads.

Well..... it was always my understanding that balanced meant an inphase and outphase
signal of equal polarity.

I assume that's a typo for "opposite polarity."

Whoops ! I was thinking / typing too fast !

I actually meant equal magnitude.


BUT, that's not what you get from a transformer-coupled output with no center
tap. A transformer-coupled output gives you a single output that is not
referenced to ground at all!

Until you connect to it to a balanced load of course. :-)


If you ground a center tap so you have a ground reference, you DO get two
opposing signals of opposite polarity. And most "active balanced" circuits
are that way.

Until you pull the cold side to ground in which case 'bad' circuits ( such as have been seen
in Mackies ) may distort and 'servo types' work like the transformer.


The extra bonus for free is that there's no doubt which lead is hot.
It's the one with the signal.

'Impedance balanced' is a cheap cheat IMHO.

A superior alternative requiring just a few more resistors is 'ground sensing', where the
outphase terminal is connected back into the 'feedback loop' which allows such a single
ended stage to 'compensate' for earth loopy problems.

There are just too damn many things out there that call themselves "balanced."

I'll agree. Many are what I personally call 'pseudo-balanced'.

Ever analysed the classic single op-amp 'balanced line input' with 4 x 10k resistors ?
Impedance to gnd on the + and - inputs ( as on the XLR ) is very different, yet almost *all*
manufacturers make the same error.


Graham

Logan Shaw wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:
Well..... it was always my understanding that balanced meant an inphase and outphase
signal of equal polarity.

You mean a two signals which are in phase but out of polarity? Actually,
that's not even technically correct.

How about two signals whose voltages are the same magnitude but opposite
signs?

That was what I meant to type ! i.e. magnitude :-)


Graham

wrote in message

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:40:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Delta 1010 has true balanced inputs, but impedance balanced outputs.

thanks, I understand
well, outputs aren't as critical as inputs...
therefore I mean this solution is acceptable for me

My 1010 works for me.

But so does the DAL Card Deluxe and the LynxTWO...

Pooh Bear wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

BUT, that's not what you get from a transformer-coupled output with no center
tap. A transformer-coupled output gives you a single output that is not
referenced to ground at all!

Until you connect to it to a balanced load of course. :-)

Not if the load is also transformer-balanced!

If you ground a center tap so you have a ground reference, you DO get two
opposing signals of opposite polarity. And most "active balanced" circuits
are that way.

Until you pull the cold side to ground in which case 'bad' circuits ( such as have been seen
in Mackies ) may distort and 'servo types' work like the transformer.

Right. The Burr-Brown balanced driver is a really nice example of the right
way to do active outputs. But in spite of the sonic degradation, sometimes
it just hard to beat a transformer.

Ever analysed the classic single op-amp 'balanced line input' with 4 x 10k resistors ?
Impedance to gnd on the + and - inputs ( as on the XLR ) is very different, yet almost *all*
manufacturers make the same error.

Yes, but the input impedance is typically so large that it's swamped by the
source impedance anyway. Asymmetric resistors would improve the CMRR a little
bit, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

Ever analysed the classic single op-amp 'balanced line input' with 4 x 10k resistors ?
Impedance to gnd on the + and - inputs ( as on the XLR ) is very different, yet almost *all*
manufacturers make the same error.

Yes, but the input impedance is typically so large that it's swamped by the
source impedance anyway. Asymmetric resistors would improve the CMRR a little
bit, though.

I think you mean *a lot*.

With 4 x 10k resistors around the classic differential amp, the I/P Z on the + terminal is 3 x
the I/P Z on the - side.

With a floating source this isn't insignificant.

What amazes me is that the sums to get it right are so simple and have been around so long - yet
few companies can be bothered to do it right.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Ever analysed the classic single op-amp 'balanced line input' with 4 x 10k
resistors ?
Impedance to gnd on the + and - inputs ( as on the XLR ) is very
different, yet almost *all*
manufacturers make the same error.

Yup. Pity, when it's so easy to compensate; just put 10k resistors on the -
side and 5k on the + side. As long as the two 5ks are matched to each other,
and the 10ks ditto, you have good rejection and a reasonable shot at
symmetrical loading.

Or, of course, stick with the 10ks all round, then put a 20k from the +
input of the XLR to ground.

Peace,
Paul

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

With 4 x 10k resistors around the classic differential amp, the I/P Z on
the + terminal is 3 x
the I/P Z on the - side.

2x, no? You have 10k from XLR to the - terminal on the opamp for the
inverting side, and the - terminal is a virtual ground so the 10k is the
input impedance, close enough for folk music. On the plus side, you have two
10k resistors in series, and the opamp's + terminal hanging on the juncture.
That oughta be 20k.

Peace,
Paul

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:11:19 GMT, Logan Shaw
wrote:

Anyway, since the impedences are the same for the two halves, all
that matters is that the two signals add up to be the signal that
is desired.

Last time this came up, Monte made the point that active signal
on both legs minimizes contamination of the ground.

Personally, I like impedance balancing for stage use, because I
don't have to guess how to hook the blasted thing up with
about five minutes available. It will at least *work*.

Chris Hornbeck
" ** this NG is chock full of metal midgets"

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:18:00 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Ever analysed the classic single op-amp 'balanced line input' with 4 x 10k resistors ?
Impedance to gnd on the + and - inputs ( as on the XLR ) is very different, yet almost *all*
manufacturers make the same error.

yes, I think so too, many authoritative manufacturers, unfortunally...

and about this "impedance balanced" - it may be usable if is connected
to the second and _really_balanced_ device ! for me it means that
"impedance balanced" = "unbalanced"

if you link device with impedance balanced output with the other with
impedance balanced input, you get total unbalanced link !
and where are the "quasi virtue" of this "balanced" link ???

here are a big groundloop problem and all other characteristic
unbalanced connections troubles...

regards, Rob

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:18:00 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Ever analysed the classic single op-amp 'balanced line input' with 4 x 10k resistors ?
Impedance to gnd on the + and - inputs ( as on the XLR ) is very different, yet almost *all*
manufacturers make the same error.

yes, I think so too, many authoritative manufacturers, unfortunally...

and about this "impedance balanced" - it may be usable if is connected
to the second and _really_balanced_ device ! for me it means that
"impedance balanced" = "unbalanced"

if you link device with impedance balanced output with the other with
impedance balanced input, you get total unbalanced link !
and where are the "quasi virtue" of this "balanced" link ???

here are a big groundloop problem and all other characteristic
unbalanced connections troubles...

regards, Rob

In article writes:

Well..... it was always my understanding that balanced meant an inphase and
outphase
signal of equal polarity.

The term for that is "symmetrical," sometimes called "differential"
although that's more correctly applied to an input.

'Impedance balanced' is a cheap cheat IMHO.

Sorry, it's according to the definition, and when connected to a
differential input, does what it's supposed to do if it's well
implemented. The fly in the ointment is that the "cold" side is, in
ever implementation that I've ever seen, a resistor, which isn't an
exact match for the non-resistive components of the output impedance
of the "hot" side. But in practice it works pretty well. Many, if not
most transformerless condenser mics have this output configuration.

A superior alternative requiring just a few more resistors is 'ground sensing',
where the
outphase terminal is connected back into the 'feedback loop' which allows such
a single
ended stage to 'compensate' for earth loopy problems.

My Soundcraft console has cross coupled ground compensated outputs
which seem to work fine. It's kind of an expensive solution when
you're trying to make a sound card with about $10 worth of parts in it
so you can sell it for under $200.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Well..... it was always my understanding that balanced meant an inphase and
outphase
signal of equal polarity.

The term for that is "symmetrical," sometimes called "differential"
although that's more correctly applied to an input.

'Impedance balanced' is a cheap cheat IMHO.

Sorry, it's according to the definition, and when connected to a
differential input, does what it's supposed to do if it's well
implemented. The fly in the ointment is that the "cold" side is, in
ever implementation that I've ever seen, a resistor, which isn't an
exact match for the non-resistive components of the output impedance
of the "hot" side. But in practice it works pretty well. Many, if not
most transformerless condenser mics have this output configuration.

A superior alternative requiring just a few more resistors is 'ground sensing',
where the
outphase terminal is connected back into the 'feedback loop' which allows such
a single
ended stage to 'compensate' for earth loopy problems.

My Soundcraft console has cross coupled ground compensated outputs
which seem to work fine. It's kind of an expensive solution when
you're trying to make a sound card with about $10 worth of parts in it
so you can sell it for under $200.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

and about this "impedance balanced" - it may be usable if is connected
to the second and _really_balanced_ device ! for me it means that
"impedance balanced" = "unbalanced"

The only time a balanced interconnection is advantageous (at least as
far as rejecting common mode noise - the main reason for doing it) is
when a differential input is fed from a balanced output. If you don't
have a differential (or as you call it "really balanced") destination
there is no advantage to having a blanced output. You will have an
unbalanced INTERCONNECTION.

if you link device with impedance balanced output with the other with
impedance balanced input, you get total unbalanced link !
and where are the "quasi virtue" of this "balanced" link ???

There really isn't such a thing as an impedance balanced input. If
you're talking about the circuit that uses resistors to provide the
same input impedance on the high and low legs of a differential input,
that's a differential input. If the input impedances aren't equal
(which is what that discussion is about) the effect, with regard to
common mode noise pickup, is the same as if the impedances of the two
legs of a balanced output aren't equal.

here are a big groundloop problem and all other characteristic
unbalanced connections troubles...

Ground loops aren't a result of unbalanced connections, they're a
result of poor design. But such poor designs are more evident if you
have unbalanced connections. It's sort of like the theory that trailer
parks attract tornados.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

and about this "impedance balanced" - it may be usable if is connected
to the second and _really_balanced_ device ! for me it means that
"impedance balanced" = "unbalanced"

The only time a balanced interconnection is advantageous (at least as
far as rejecting common mode noise - the main reason for doing it) is
when a differential input is fed from a balanced output. If you don't
have a differential (or as you call it "really balanced") destination
there is no advantage to having a blanced output. You will have an
unbalanced INTERCONNECTION.

if you link device with impedance balanced output with the other with
impedance balanced input, you get total unbalanced link !
and where are the "quasi virtue" of this "balanced" link ???

There really isn't such a thing as an impedance balanced input. If
you're talking about the circuit that uses resistors to provide the
same input impedance on the high and low legs of a differential input,
that's a differential input. If the input impedances aren't equal
(which is what that discussion is about) the effect, with regard to
common mode noise pickup, is the same as if the impedances of the two
legs of a balanced output aren't equal.

here are a big groundloop problem and all other characteristic
unbalanced connections troubles...

Ground loops aren't a result of unbalanced connections, they're a
result of poor design. But such poor designs are more evident if you
have unbalanced connections. It's sort of like the theory that trailer
parks attract tornados.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:01:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

But so does the DAL Card Deluxe

DAL doesn't dale in my Country :-(((

and the LynxTWO...

to expensive...

thank You, regards. Rob

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:01:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

But so does the DAL Card Deluxe

DAL doesn't dale in my Country :-(((

and the LynxTWO...

to expensive...

thank You, regards. Rob