Re: Seeking help on sound card !

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.