Difference between M-Audio 2496 and Delta 44

[gjsmo]

Is there any big difference? They've got pretty much the same specs,
but the Delta has a breakout box with 1/4" inputs (and nothing else on
the card), while the 2496 has stuff coming right out of the card.

Bottom line, is the quality going to be the same?

[Arny Krueger]

"gjsmo" > wrote in message


> Is there any big difference? They've got pretty much the
> same specs, but the Delta has a breakout box with 1/4"
> inputs (and nothing else on the card), while the 2496 has
> stuff coming right out of the card.

> Bottom line, is the quality going to be the same?

IME the Delta 66 is you say very comparable in some ways to the AP 2496.
For example, they were both based on AKM converters and VIA's Envy24
chipset. Despite the connectors on the Delta 66 breakout box, both are
electronically unbalanced. If memory serves, the Delta 66 is designed for
standard audio production signal voltages in and out, while the AP 2496 is
more oriented towards consumer signal levels which are 6-10 dB lower. I
don't know if this is due to the use of different converters or the lower
signal levels, but IME the Delta 66 is the quieter card.

[gjsmo]

On Sep 3, 1:15*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "gjsmo" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Is there any big difference? They've got pretty much the
> > same specs, but the Delta has a breakout box with 1/4"
> > inputs (and nothing else on the card), while the 2496 has
> > stuff coming right out of the card.
> > Bottom line, is the quality going to be the same?
>
> IME the Delta 66 is you say very comparable in some ways to the AP 2496.
> For example, they were both based on AKM converters and VIA's Envy24
> chipset. Despite the connectors on the Delta 66 breakout box, both are
> electronically unbalanced. *If memory serves, the Delta 66 is designed for
> standard audio production signal voltages in and out, while the AP 2496 is
> more oriented towards consumer signal levels which are 6-10 dB lower. *I
> don't know if this is due to the use of different converters or the lower
> signal levels, but IME the Delta 66 is the quieter card.

So there is a difference. They're about the same price, and I should
have enough money for them soon.
I was actually going to the get Delta 44 - which is cheaper. Seems
like it should be the same hardware, though.

If I've got 1/4 jacks coming out a mixer, that should be +4dB, right?
Also, would I be able to plug a guitar directly into the Delta
breakout box?

[Cyberserf[_2_]]

On Sep 3, 1:13*pm, gjsmo > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 1:15*pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "gjsmo" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > Is there any big difference? They've got pretty much the
> > > same specs, but the Delta has a breakout box with 1/4"
> > > inputs (and nothing else on the card), while the 2496 has
> > > stuff coming right out of the card.
> > > Bottom line, is the quality going to be the same?
>
> > IME the Delta 66 is you say very comparable in some ways to the AP 2496..
> > For example, they were both based on AKM converters and VIA's Envy24
> > chipset. Despite the connectors on the Delta 66 breakout box, both are
> > electronically unbalanced. *If memory serves, the Delta 66 is designed for
> > standard audio production signal voltages in and out, while the AP 2496 is
> > more oriented towards consumer signal levels which are 6-10 dB lower. *I
> > don't know if this is due to the use of different converters or the lower
> > signal levels, but IME the Delta 66 is the quieter card.
>
> So there is a difference. They're about the same price, and I should
> have enough money for them soon.
> I was actually going to the get Delta 44 - which is cheaper. Seems
> like it should be the same hardware, though.
>
> If I've got 1/4 jacks coming out a mixer, that should be +4dB, right?
> Also, would I be able to plug a guitar directly into the Delta
> breakout box?

I think that pretty much depends on your mixer and the outputs you
choose...check your specs.

-CS

[Mike Rivers]

gjsmo wrote:

> So there is a difference. They're about the same price, and I should
> have enough money for them soon.
> I was actually going to the get Delta 44 - which is cheaper. Seems
> like it should be the same hardware, though.

I wouldn't count on anything being "the same" unless it has
the same model number, and even then I wouldn't be too sure.

The Delta is analog I/O only, the 2496 has one analog pair
and one digital pair of inputs and outputs.

The connectors are different, and, although not specified,
as Arny suggests, I would speculate that the nominal input
and output levels are different.

> If I've got 1/4 jacks coming out a mixer, that should be +4dB, right?

Depends on the mixer. Look in your manual. The Delta
accommodates +4 and -10 analog I/O.

> Also, would I be able to plug a guitar directly into the Delta
> breakout box?

Sure, but you probably wouldn't be very impressed with the
sound. Those aren't designed to be instrument inputs and
you'd probably find the record level to be low and the sound
to be pretty dull. But you'd get something out of it. The
Audiophile is probably just as incompatible.

According to the M-Audio web site, the Delta is $100 more
than the Audiophile. If you've found them both at the same
price, you're probably looking at somebody's closeout.
Nothing wrong with that as long as it's legitimate. Since
you're planning on using it with a mixer, unless you have a
need for digital I/O, I'd go for the Delta if you can afford
it.




--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[gjsmo]

On Sep 3, 4:35*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> gjsmo wrote:
> > So there is a difference. They're about the same price, and I should
> > have enough money for them soon.
> > I was actually going to the get Delta 44 - which is cheaper. Seems
> > like it should be the same hardware, though.
>
> I wouldn't count on anything being "the same" unless it has
> the same model number, and even then I wouldn't be too sure.

I think I read that the Delta line is all the same stuff, just
different numbers of I/O.


> The Delta is analog I/O only, the 2496 has one analog pair
> and one digital pair of inputs and outputs.
>
> The connectors are different, and, although not specified,
> as Arny suggests, I would speculate that the nominal input
> and output levels are different.
>
> > If I've got 1/4 jacks coming out a mixer, that should be +4dB, right?
>
> Depends on the mixer. Look in your manual. The Delta
> accommodates +4 and -10 analog I/O.

Well that's nice. Don't know where the manual is, but it's a Behringer
XENYX 802 - I'd be using it just for pre-amps (and possibly some EQ)

> > Also, would I be able to plug a guitar directly into the Delta
> > breakout box?
>
> Sure, but you probably wouldn't be very impressed with the
> sound. Those aren't designed to be instrument inputs and
> you'd probably find the record level to be low and the sound
> to be pretty dull. But you'd get something out of it. The
> Audiophile is probably just as incompatible.

Ah. Thought that might be the case. I've done it before with a mixer
(plugging into a non-preamped input) and the sound is plenty good, but
it has to be cranked to max. The problem goes away if I use a pedal,
since that's sort of like a pre-amp. Is there a transformer (or
something else) that will raise the input to an acceptable level,
without being a full-blown preamp?

> According to the M-Audio web site, the Delta is $100 more
> than the Audiophile. If you've found them both at the same
> price, you're probably looking at somebody's closeout.
> Nothing wrong with that as long as it's legitimate. Since
> you're planning on using it with a mixer, unless you have a
> need for digital I/O, I'd go for the Delta if you can afford
> it.

It was Guitar Center. Both were about $150. And I actually won't have
digital I/O... so the AP 2496 is out.

> --
> "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
> operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
> it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
> of audio." - John Watkinson
I have a feeling this is just what I'm trying to do.

[Arny Krueger]

"gjsmo" > wrote in message

> On Sep 3, 1:15 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "gjsmo" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> Is there any big difference? They've got pretty much the
>>> same specs, but the Delta has a breakout box with 1/4"
>>> inputs (and nothing else on the card), while the 2496
>>> has stuff coming right out of the card.
>>> Bottom line, is the quality going to be the same?
>>
>> IME the Delta 66 is you say very comparable in some ways
>> to the AP 2496. For example, they were both based on AKM
>> converters and VIA's Envy24 chipset. Despite the
>> connectors on the Delta 66 breakout box, both are
>> electronically unbalanced. If memory serves, the Delta
>> 66 is designed for standard audio production signal
>> voltages in and out, while the AP 2496 is more oriented
>> towards consumer signal levels which are 6-10 dB lower.
>> I don't know if this is due to the use of different
>> converters or the lower signal levels, but IME the Delta
>> 66 is the quieter card.
>
> So there is a difference. They're about the same price,
> and I should have enough money for them soon.
> I was actually going to the get Delta 44 - which is
> cheaper. Seems like it should be the same hardware,
> though.
>
> If I've got 1/4 jacks coming out a mixer, that should be
> +4dB, right? Also, would I be able to plug a guitar
> directly into the Delta breakout box?

AP 2496 Appendix A - Technical Specs

Analog Audio
Peak Analog Input Signal: +2dBV.
Peak Analog Output Signal: +2dBV (Consumer setting),
-4dBV (-10dBV setting).
Max Converter Data Width: 24 bits.
Dynamic Range:
Outputs: 104dB (a-weighted).
Inputs: 100.4dB (a-weighted).
THD (at 0dBFS): less than 0.002%,
Frequency Response: 22Hz - 22kHz, -0.4,-0.4dB.
Input Impedance: 10k ohms minimum.
Connectors: Gold-plated RCA female, on PCI card.

Delta 66 Appendix A - Technical Specs

Appendix A - Technical Specs
Analog Audio
Peak Analog Input Signal: +14dBu (+4dBu setting),
+6dBV (Consumer setting),
0dBV (-10dBV setting).
Peak Analog Output Signal: +14dBu (+4dBu setting),
+6dBV (Consumer setting).
0dBV (-10dBV setting)
Dynamic Range:
Outputs: 103dB (a-weighted),
Inputs: 99dB (a-weighted)
THD (at 0dBFS):
Outputs: less than 0.0015%,
Inputs: less than 0.0024%
Frequency Response: 22Hz - 22kHz, -0.3,-0.2dB
Input Impedance: 10k ohms minimum
Input Connectors: 1/4" female TRS-type, balanced or
unbalanced
Output Connectors: 1/4" female TRS-type, balanced or unbalanced

Note the differences in analog input and output signal levels. The Deltat 66
is clearly better suited for use with audio production equipment. However,
the AP 2496 might be the better tool for interfacing with the RCA
input/output jacks on some consoles.

[Arny Krueger]

"gjsmo" > wrote in message

> On Sep 3, 4:35 pm, Mike Rivers >
> wrote:
>> gjsmo wrote:
>>> So there is a difference. They're about the same price,
>>> and I should have enough money for them soon.
>>> I was actually going to the get Delta 44 - which is
>>> cheaper. Seems like it should be the same hardware,
>>> though.
>>
>> I wouldn't count on anything being "the same" unless it
>> has the same model number, and even then I wouldn't be
>> too sure.
>
> I think I read that the Delta line is all the same stuff,
> just different numbers of I/O.
>
>
>> The Delta is analog I/O only, the 2496 has one analog
>> pair and one digital pair of inputs and outputs.
>>
>> The connectors are different, and, although not
>> specified, as Arny suggests, I would speculate that the
>> nominal input and output levels are different.
>>
>>> If I've got 1/4 jacks coming out a mixer, that should
>>> be +4dB, right?
>>
>> Depends on the mixer. Look in your manual. The Delta
>> accommodates +4 and -10 analog I/O.
>
> Well that's nice. Don't know where the manual is, but
> it's a Behringer XENYX 802 - I'd be using it just for
> pre-amps (and possibly some EQ)

If you're going to use the RCA input and output jacks on the Xenyx 802, then
the AP 2496 might be the better choice.

[Mike Rivers]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Delta 66 Appendix A - Technical Specs
>
> Appendix A - Technical Specs
> Analog Audio
> Peak Analog Input Signal: +14dBu (+4dBu setting),
> +6dBV (Consumer setting),
> 0dBV (-10dBV setting).
> Peak Analog Output Signal: +14dBu (+4dBu setting),
> +6dBV (Consumer setting).
> 0dBV (-10dBV setting)

Note that the maximum input level is 6 dB below the maximum
output level of your typical "+4" mixer of today. From the
Xenix 802 spec sheet, the maximum output level is +22 dBu,
so the Delta will clip 6 dB sooner than the mixer. Probably
output level of the Delta will be 6 dB lower than the mixer
would prefer. But that's kind of the way it is these days.
You just have to know your equipment.

And why do you keep writing about the Delta 66 when he's
asking about the 44?



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[gjsmo]

On Sep 3, 11:12*pm, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > Delta 66 *Appendix A - Technical Specs
>
> > Appendix A - Technical Specs
> > Analog Audio
> > Peak Analog Input Signal: +14dBu (+4dBu setting),
> > +6dBV (Consumer setting),
> > 0dBV (-10dBV setting).
> > Peak Analog Output Signal: +14dBu (+4dBu setting),
> > +6dBV (Consumer setting).
> > 0dBV (-10dBV setting)
>
> Note that the maximum input level is 6 dB below the maximum
> output level of your typical "+4" mixer of today. From the
> Xenix 802 spec sheet, the maximum output level is +22 dBu,
> so the Delta will clip 6 dB sooner than the mixer. Probably
> output level of the Delta will be 6 dB lower than the mixer
> would prefer. But that's kind of the way it is these days.
> You just have to know your equipment.
>
> And why do you keep writing about the Delta 66 when he's
> asking about the 44?
>
> --
> "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
> operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
> it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
> of audio." - John Watkinson

So, if I've got this right... When my mixer shows -6dB (it's a 4-LED
scale - too tiny for me, really), the Delta will effectively be seeing
0dB?
I seem to remember seeing that with 24-bit converters, it's best to
have around 12dB headroom, because you don't have to worry about
"hiss" or the quality of 16-bit audio. I'd love to take advantage of
that, because even with my digital stuff, I'm in the habit of asking
people (ok, my guitarist) to play "as loud as you can" so that I know
it will never clip, but be as high as possible (the recorder is CD
quality).

[Scott Dorsey]

gjsmo > wrote:
>
>So, if I've got this right... When my mixer shows -6dB (it's a 4-LED
>scale - too tiny for me, really), the Delta will effectively be seeing
>0dB?

The metering on your console is probably average-reading, the and metering
on the Delta is peak-reading, so they won't agree anyway.

Just watch the digital levels and everything will be fine.

Your worries come when the console clips _before_ the converters.

>I seem to remember seeing that with 24-bit converters, it's best to
>have around 12dB headroom, because you don't have to worry about
>"hiss" or the quality of 16-bit audio. I'd love to take advantage of
>that, because even with my digital stuff, I'm in the habit of asking
>people (ok, my guitarist) to play "as loud as you can" so that I know
>it will never clip, but be as high as possible (the recorder is CD
>quality).

Even with 16-bit converters, 12 dB of headroom is not so bad. At least
6 dB would be reasonable. (And we're talking about peak levels here).
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

gjsmo wrote:

> So, if I've got this right... When my mixer shows -6dB (it's a 4-LED
> scale - too tiny for me, really), the Delta will effectively be seeing
> 0dB?

I wouldn't make a guess. I'd make a measurement. But if your
mixer looks like the one in the picture of the web site, you
don't have a -6 LED, but you have a +6 LED. If the 0 LED is
really +4 dBu out, then when the +6 LED lights, the record
level from the Delta will be -4 dBFS. I would consider the
+6 LED flashing occasionally to be as hot as you should get
giving the metering on that mixer. But only if the meter
calibration follows the "0=+4" convention.

"Effectively" really isn't the right way to look at it.

> I seem to remember seeing that with 24-bit converters, it's best to
> have around 12dB headroom, because you don't have to worry about
> "hiss" or the quality of 16-bit audio.

I wouldn't attach those numbers to it, but it's pretty well
understood that you can be more conservative with record
level with 24-bit recording because you still have plenty of
resolution when your peaks don't go above -10 dBFS. But if
you record this way, you WILL worry that your levels are too
low because
(a) the squiggles on the waveform display won't be very wide and
(b) when you play back the recording through something with
a meter, the meter won't go up very far.

You can fix that in post-production but it WILL bother you.
You'll want to know why your levels "aren't hot enough."

> even with my digital stuff, I'm in the habit of asking
> people (ok, my guitarist) to play "as loud as you can" so that I know
> it will never clip, but be as high as possible (the recorder is CD
> quality).

It's a good idea to get them to play or sing as loud as they
can so you can check levels. Just don't set the level so
that it just barely doesn't go to full scale, set it 6-10 dB
lower. Or if you're listening to "normal" volume playing,
set it so that the peaks are between -20 and -16. That's
looking at a digital meter, not the LEDs on the mixer.





--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Delta 66 Appendix A - Technical Specs
>>
>> Appendix A - Technical Specs
>> Analog Audio
>> Peak Analog Input Signal: +14dBu (+4dBu setting),
>> +6dBV (Consumer setting),
>> 0dBV (-10dBV setting).
>> Peak Analog Output Signal: +14dBu (+4dBu setting),
>> +6dBV (Consumer setting).
>> 0dBV (-10dBV setting)
>
> Note that the maximum input level is 6 dB below the
> maximum output level of your typical "+4" mixer of today.
> From the Xenix 802 spec sheet, the maximum output level
> is +22 dBu, so the Delta will clip 6 dB sooner than the
> mixer. Probably output level of the Delta will be 6 dB
> lower than the mixer would prefer. But that's kind of the
> way it is these days. You just have to know your
> equipment.
> And why do you keep writing about the Delta 66 when he's
> asking about the 44?

The Delta 66 is identical to the Delta 66 except for the SP/DIF I/O on the
Delta 66. If memory serves, they are built on the same board, but the Delta
44 board is unpopulated in the relevant areas.