How do you put 2 sound cards on a computer?

I bought a Compaq computer with an integrated sound card, the kind that's
built in to the mother board. The input and output connections are on the
front of the computer. In addition, I installed a Creative Sound Blaster
PCI card; its connections are on the back of the computer. After going
through the installation process, I find that this new sound card has
replaced the original built-in card--which is OK in general. But now I want
to be able to use both of these sound cards at the same time. the SB will
be used for recording a source plugged into the back, and the built-in card
will be used to play CDs out the front panel as originally configured.

I don't know how to do this. Can anyone give me help. It seems every sound
card assumes it's the only one on the computer.

Thanks muchly,

Norm Strong

[jwvm]

On Jan 28, 2:24 pm, > wrote:
> I bought a Compaq computer with an integrated sound card, the kind that's
> built in to the mother board. The input and output connections are on the
> front of the computer. In addition, I installed a Creative Sound Blaster
> PCI card; its connections are on the back of the computer. After going
> through the installation process, I find that this new sound card has
> replaced the original built-in card--which is OK in general. But now I want
> to be able to use both of these sound cards at the same time. the SB will
> be used for recording a source plugged into the back, and the built-in card
> will be used to play CDs out the front panel as originally configured.
>
> I don't know how to do this. Can anyone give me help. It seems every sound
> card assumes it's the only one on the computer.
>


I have had as many as 4 working sound cards in a PC but that can get a
little dicey. Two cards should work just fine assuming that the chips
are different. Check the device manager and see if both cards show up
without yellow-highlighted exclamation marks. If only the soundblaster
shows up, make sure that the motherboard sound card is still enabled
in the bios. You might want to pass along the motherboard sound chip
though that is not likely to be the problem.

[Boris Lau]

wrote:
> I bought a Compaq computer with an integrated sound card, the kind that's
> built in to the mother board. The input and output connections are on the
> front of the computer. In addition, I installed a Creative Sound Blaster
> PCI card; its connections are on the back of the computer. After going
> through the installation process, I find that this new sound card has
> replaced the original built-in card--which is OK in general.

My windows is german, so I'm not sure how the menu caption translate to
the english version. But anyway:

What do you mean with replaced? Has the other sound card been removed
from the hardware tree (see system config --> system --> hardware -->
...manager), or just replaced as the default sound device?
In the system control thing, you can select sounds and multimedia
options and pick the preferred standard devices.

In the preferences of applications like Winamp you can now select a the
other soundcard for wave out purposes.

Boris


--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

> I installed a Creative Sound Blaster
> PCI card; its connections are on the back of the computer. After going
> through the installation process, I find that this new sound card has
> replaced the original built-in card--which is OK in general. But now I want
> to be able to use both of these sound cards at the same time. the SB will
> be used for recording a source plugged into the back, and the built-in card
> will be used to play CDs out the front panel as originally configured.

Given that it's a SoundBlaster that you installed, it may very well
have taken your computer's configuration into its own hands and
disabled the internal sound hardware. In general, this is a good idea,
at least initially, so that you won't have to deal with setup or
interrupt conflicts.

Unless you want the sound to go to different speakers when you play a
CD, you probably don't need the built-in sound card at all and you're
better off without it. Is it a matter of where the heaphone jack is
located that's convenient?

[Julian]

On 28 Jan 2007 12:29:13 -0800, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>Unless you want the sound to go to different speakers when you play a
>CD, you probably don't need the built-in sound card at all and you're
>better off without it.

I like using my onboard sound card for monitoring and my LynxOne for
recording. There are other reasons why someone would want 2 working
sound cards.

Julian

[Daniel Mandic]

Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> wrote:
>
> > I installed a Creative Sound Blaster
> > PCI card; its connections are on the back of the computer. After
> > going through the installation process, I find that this new sound
> > card has replaced the original built-in card--which is OK in
> > general. But now I want to be able to use both of these sound
> > cards at the same time. the SB will be used for recording a source
> > plugged into the back, and the built-in card will be used to play
> > CDs out the front panel as originally configured.
>
> Given that it's a SoundBlaster that you installed, it may very well
> have taken your computer's configuration into its own hands and
> disabled the internal sound hardware. In general, this is a good
> idea, at least initially, so that you won't have to deal with setup
> or interrupt conflicts.
>
> Unless you want the sound to go to different speakers when you play a
> CD, you probably don't need the built-in sound card at all and you're
> better off without it. Is it a matter of where the heaphone jack is
> located that's convenient?



Hi Mike!


Sorry for the disturbance....

Do you play Guitar and Harp?



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message


> I bought a Compaq computer with an integrated sound card,
> the kind that's built in to the mother board. The input
> and output connections are on the front of the computer. In addition, I
> installed a Creative Sound Blaster PCI
> card; its connections are on the back of the computer. After going through
> the installation process, I find that
> this new sound card has replaced the original built-in
> card--which is OK in general.

The central source of information related to this issue is the "Sounds and
Audio Devices" applet in the Windows Control Panel. The Audio tab provides
the means for specifying the "Default device". If you click the pull-down
menu, you should find a list of all of the relevant audio devices that are
installed in your computer. Which ever one you select to be the default
device becomes the device that all programs that work only with the default
device will use.

> But now I want to be able
> to use both of these sound cards at the same time.

A program that uses multiple windows standard multimedia audio devices
(*not* ASIO devices which are in their own little world acessible to only a
subset of audio programs), should have some kind of menu for selecting which
audio device is used for various functions.

For example Audion/CEP has a function for setting "Device Order", under the
Options command.

> the SB will be used for recording a source plugged into the
> back, and the built-in card will be used to play CDs out
> the front panel as originally configured.

This is true for any program that is designed to let the choice of default
device be set by the Windows Control panel.

> I don't know how to do this. Can anyone give me help.

The central point of control related to this issue is the "Sounds and Audio
Devices" applet in the Windows Control Panel.

> It seems every sound card assumes it's the only one on
> the computer.

No, it is only certain simple audio programs that assume that there is only
one audio interface in the computer. More complex audio programs provide a
means for circumventing the Control Panel applet's setting of the default
device. Those programs also generally allow you to access the Control
Panel's choice of Default device as the "Wave Mapper"

[Mike Rivers]

Julian wrote:

> I like using my onboard sound card for monitoring and my LynxOne for
> recording.

Monitoring? Like monitoring what you're recording? Is your on-board
sound card better than your Lynx? If you aren't hearing as good as
possible, then you can't tell for sure what you're recording, or have
just recorded. Why do you prefer doing it that way? Your Lynx card has
a perfectly good output.

> There are other reasons why someone would want 2 working
> sound cards.

I'm sure there are, but I hope they're better than yours. If you have
a really good explanation I'd like to hear it. But if it's that you
can't figure out how to turn off the output of the Lynx when you're
recording in the same room as the monitorrs with a mic, well, good
luck with that Grammy for engineering excellence.

[Geoff]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> I installed a Creative Sound Blaster
>> PCI card; its connections are on the back of the computer. After
>> going through the installation process, I find that this new sound
>> card has replaced the original built-in card--which is OK in
>> general. But now I want to be able to use both of these sound cards
>> at the same time. the SB will be used for recording a source
>> plugged into the back, and the built-in card will be used to play
>> CDs out the front panel as originally configured.
>
> Given that it's a SoundBlaster that you installed, it may very well
> have taken your computer's configuration into its own hands and
> disabled the internal sound hardware.

Unlikely 'disabled' but more likely installed itself as the active device
in START | Control Panel | Sounds and Audio Devices | Audio. The drop-down
boxes specify which device is used for the basic systems sounds . More
sophisticated audio applications don't use the system defaults, but are able
to explicitly choose which interface.

geoff

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:48:21 -0800, Julian
> wrote:

>I like using my onboard sound card for monitoring and my LynxOne for
>recording. There are other reasons why someone would want 2 working
>sound cards.

Not many of them stand up to rigorous scrutiny, I suspect. (With the
exception of installing identical cards to allow more channels in a
DAW. But none of them would be SoundBlasters :-)

[Boris Lau]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> Not many of them stand up to rigorous scrutiny, I suspect. (With the
> exception of installing identical cards to allow more channels in a
> DAW. But none of them would be SoundBlasters :-)

I used to have two sound cards in my computer, one for playing back
system sounds (e.g. from instant messengers, e-mail, etc) and one for
playing back music. That was the easiest way of controlling the volume
of the music independently from the rest.
Maybe there are multi-channel sound cards that appear as multiple
devices under windows, but why bother.

Now it's still similar, I use my firewire audio interface for recording
and playing music, and the onboard sound for system sounds.

Boris

--
http://www.borislau.de - computer science, music, photos

[Julian]

On 28 Jan 2007 14:31:33 -0800, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>> There are other reasons why someone would want 2 working
>> sound cards.
>
>I'm sure there are, but I hope they're better than yours. If you have
>a really good explanation I'd like to hear it.

You're funny Mike. It's just an easy way to get a signal into my
little computer speakers when doing something which does NOT require
critical monitoring. For doing a transfer when I've verified hundreds
of time no problem occur, critical monitoring is not needed. For
editing (cutting and pasting), critical monitoring is not needed. For
critical monitoring I'd use my Lynx analog out to drive real speakers
or the Lynx digital out to drive a DAT or minidisc which I can I plug
headphones into.

Julian

[Mike Rivers]

Daniel Mandic wrote:
> Do you play Guitar and Harp?

Admit it. You want to know if it's me in the Chicken Lips Blues video.
No. I have no idea who that is, but I wish he'd quit using my name,.

[Mike Rivers]

Boris Lau wrote:

> I used to have two sound cards in my computer, one for playing back
> system sounds (e.g. from instant messengers, e-mail, etc) and one for
> playing back music. That was the easiest way of controlling the volume
> of the music independently from the rest.

But after about two weeks, you got tired of system sounds and turned
them off, I'll bet. I've never figured out the fascination with those
noises. It's bad enough that we got conditioned to answer our
telephones. Why should we have to jump up and run to our computers
when they tell us we have mail?

Turning off system sounds is also a good idea to make music programs
work better.

[Anthony Fremont]

wrote:
> I bought a Compaq computer with an integrated sound card, the kind
> that's built in to the mother board. The input and output
> connections are on the front of the computer. In addition, I
> installed a Creative Sound Blaster PCI card; its connections are on
> the back of the computer. After going through the installation
> process, I find that this new sound card has replaced the original
> built-in card--which is OK in general. But now I want to be able to
> use both of these sound cards at the same time. the SB will be used
> for recording a source plugged into the back, and the built-in card
> will be used to play CDs out the front panel as originally
> configured.
> I don't know how to do this. Can anyone give me help. It seems
> every sound card assumes it's the only one on the computer.

Many motherboards with integrated sound automatically disable the built-in
sound when another sound device is plugged in. I don't really know why the
manufactures do this since having multiple sound cards working together is
not that that tough.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:41:39 -0800, Julian
> wrote:

>>> There are other reasons why someone would want 2 working
>>> sound cards.
>>
>>I'm sure there are, but I hope they're better than yours. If you have
>>a really good explanation I'd like to hear it.
>
>You're funny Mike. It's just an easy way to get a signal into my
>little computer speakers when doing something which does NOT require
>critical monitoring. For doing a transfer when I've verified hundreds
>of time no problem occur, critical monitoring is not needed. For
>editing (cutting and pasting), critical monitoring is not needed. For
>critical monitoring I'd use my Lynx analog out to drive real speakers
>or the Lynx digital out to drive a DAT or minidisc which I can I plug
>headphones into.

But, for all your examples, quality audio wouldn't HURT. Why take the
trouble of setting up and switching to a crap system when a good one's
sitting idle?

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:19:07 -0600, "Anthony Fremont"
> wrote:

>Many motherboards with integrated sound automatically disable the built-in
>sound when another sound device is plugged in. I don't really know why the
>manufactures do this since having multiple sound cards working together is
>not that that tough.

Which motherboard does that? I've never experienced it happening.

I suppose the installation of a new card might set it as default
device in Windows. But that's a lot different to disabling the
integrated audio at moherboard level.

[Laurence Payne]

>http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid68_gci1212411,00.htmlOn Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:39:57 +0100, Markus Mietling > wrote:

>>Which motherboard does that? I've never experienced it happening.
>
>Fujitsu D1337 from their Celsius Workstation series, for instance.
>That's the one _I_ know, because I had one once: I had no way of using
>onboard audio as soon as my RME card was plugged in.
>
>>I suppose the installation of a new card might set it as default
>>device in Windows. But that's a lot different to disabling the
>>integrated audio at moherboard level.
>
>Sure. Look at the BIOS settings for onboard audio. Most likely you'll
>find an "auto" setting, where "auto" means "disable if other audio
>hardware present", which is exactly what the OP described.

Did the Fujitsu have only the "auto" option?

[Mike Rivers]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> I suppose the installation of a new card might set it as default
> device in Windows. But that's a lot different to disabling the
> integrated audio at moherboard level.

Not to someone who doesn't know how these things are controlled. All
the person who installed a new sound card knows is that whatever he
used to have hooked up to his old audio outputs no longer works. It's
valid for him to ask what he can do to get it working again, and for
what. It's also easy to assume, if he's not that curious or adamant
about losing it, that it's been disabled for his own good (which, for
the majority of users, it is).

[Cornelius]

On 28 Jan 2007 14:31:33 -0800, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>
>Julian wrote:
>
>> I like using my onboard sound card for monitoring and my LynxOne for
>> recording.
>
>Monitoring? Like monitoring what you're recording? Is your on-board
>sound card better than your Lynx? If you aren't hearing as good as
>possible, then you can't tell for sure what you're recording, or have
>just recorded. Why do you prefer doing it that way? Your Lynx card has
>a perfectly good output.
>
>> There are other reasons why someone would want 2 working
>> sound cards.
>
>I'm sure there are, but I hope they're better than yours. If you have
>a really good explanation I'd like to hear it. But if it's that you
>can't figure out how to turn off the output of the Lynx when you're
>recording in the same room as the monitorrs with a mic, well, good
>luck with that Grammy for engineering excellence.


My example of this is the setup I use to DJ. I'm using OTS Turntables
software - and use my main soundcard (ESI Juli@) to drive the system
and use the onboard card for cue. I don't need great audio quality
just to drive my headphones for a cue channel.

--- Cornelius
Remove "nospam" from email address to reply

[Mike Rivers]

Cornelius wrote:
> My example of this is the setup I use to DJ. I'm using OTS Turntables
> software - and use my main soundcard (ESI Juli@) to drive the system
> and use the onboard card for cue.

That's a pretty specialized application and I'd never think of it in a
month of Sundays, but it's one that really requires two independently-
fed outputs. What you really need (and I'll bet your software provides
for it) is a multi-channel sound card with one set of outputs for the
"house" and another for the cue channel. If you got it to work, I
guess two separate cards makes for a reasonable substitute.

[Julian]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:43:41 +0000, Laurence Payne
<lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:41:39 -0800, Julian
> wrote:
>>You're funny Mike. It's just an easy way to get a signal into my
>>little computer speakers when doing something which does NOT require
>>critical monitoring. For doing a transfer when I've verified hundreds
>>of time no problem occur, critical monitoring is not needed. For
>>editing (cutting and pasting), critical monitoring is not needed. For
>>critical monitoring I'd use my Lynx analog out to drive real speakers
>>or the Lynx digital out to drive a DAT or minidisc which I can I plug
>>headphones into.
>
>But, for all your examples, quality audio wouldn't HURT. Why take the
>trouble of setting up and switching to a crap system when a good one's
>sitting idle?

I live in a small studio apartment and I have my computer in my
bedroom where there is very limited space. More than 99% of the time
when I use my computer I am either not doing audio or if I am doing
audio it is not anything that requires critical listening. When I
bought this Dell a year and a half ago it came with an onboard sound
card and I already had a set of really nice top of the line Boston
Acoustic computer speakers that sound just fine in 99% of the
situations I use them for. In the less than 1% of the time when I
need more precise audio monitoring, I take the additional trouble to
haul in equipment that cannot live permanently in my bedroom due to
space limitations or go to a facility with real monitors.

The onboard sound card is set up as my default and handles the windows
bleeps and boops just dandy and well as other applications such as
windows media player Power DVD, etc, that cannot select between sound
devices, My professional applications that can select sound cards do
just fine using either sound card as needed.

I'm sorry if my solution to monitoring doesn't meet with your
approval, but frankly I don't give a rat's ass.

Cheers,

Julian

[Julian]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:05:55 -0500, Cornelius
> wrote:

>On 28 Jan 2007 14:31:33 -0800, "Mike Rivers" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Julian wrote:
>>
>>> I like using my onboard sound card for monitoring and my LynxOne for
>>> recording.
>>
>>Monitoring? Like monitoring what you're recording? Is your on-board
>>sound card better than your Lynx? If you aren't hearing as good as
>>possible, then you can't tell for sure what you're recording, or have
>>just recorded. Why do you prefer doing it that way? Your Lynx card has
>>a perfectly good output.
>>
>>> There are other reasons why someone would want 2 working
>>> sound cards.
>>
>>I'm sure there are, but I hope they're better than yours. If you have
>>a really good explanation I'd like to hear it. But if it's that you
>>can't figure out how to turn off the output of the Lynx when you're
>>recording in the same room as the monitorrs with a mic, well, good
>>luck with that Grammy for engineering excellence.
>
>
>My example of this is the setup I use to DJ. I'm using OTS Turntables
>software - and use my main soundcard (ESI Juli@) to drive the system
>and use the onboard card for cue. I don't need great audio quality
>just to drive my headphones for a cue channel.
>
>--- Cornelius
>Remove "nospam" from email address to reply

Another good example of proper use of 2 sound cards.

Julian

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
>> I installed a Creative Sound Blaster
>> PCI card; its connections are on the back of the computer. After going
>> through the installation process, I find that this new sound card has
>> replaced the original built-in card--which is OK in general. But now I
>> want
>> to be able to use both of these sound cards at the same time. the SB
>> will
>> be used for recording a source plugged into the back, and the built-in
>> card
>> will be used to play CDs out the front panel as originally configured.
>
> Given that it's a SoundBlaster that you installed, it may very well
> have taken your computer's configuration into its own hands and
> disabled the internal sound hardware. In general, this is a good idea,
> at least initially, so that you won't have to deal with setup or
> interrupt conflicts.
>
> Unless you want the sound to go to different speakers when you play a
> CD, you probably don't need the built-in sound card at all and you're
> better off without it. Is it a matter of where the heaphone jack is
> located that's convenient?

Here's the exact problem I'm trying to solve:

I have 70GB of mp3 files on my hard drive; I listen to them while doing
other work on the computer. I also want to be able to record from internet
radio stations at the same time. I would need to be able to switch my
headphones from the mp3 files to the radio program. Of course I don't want
to have to physically plug and unplug the headphones.

Thanks,

Norm
>

[Daniel Mandic]

Mike Rivers wrote:

>
> Daniel Mandic wrote:
> > Do you play Guitar and Harp?
>
> Admit it. You want to know if it's me in the Chicken Lips Blues
> video. No. I have no idea who that is, but I wish he'd quit using my
> name,.


Thanks.


I thought to the former AMIGA (Commodore, Westchester PA) Worker, Mike
Rivers.

He played some guitar riffs and a bit on a harp, in the 'Deathbed
Vigil, and Digital Angst' Video. Produced by Dave Haynie (AA and AAA
Graphic-Chip developer), ~1994 when Commodore dropped down....



Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
>
>
>> I bought a Compaq computer with an integrated sound card,
>> the kind that's built in to the mother board. The input
>> and output connections are on the front of the computer. In addition, I
>> installed a Creative Sound Blaster PCI
>> card; its connections are on the back of the computer. After going
>> through the installation process, I find that
>> this new sound card has replaced the original built-in
>> card--which is OK in general.
>
> The central source of information related to this issue is the "Sounds and
> Audio Devices" applet in the Windows Control Panel. The Audio tab
> provides the means for specifying the "Default device". If you click the
> pull-down menu, you should find a list of all of the relevant audio
> devices that are installed in your computer. Which ever one you select to
> be the default device becomes the device that all programs that work only
> with the default device will use.
>
>> But now I want to be able
>> to use both of these sound cards at the same time.
>
> A program that uses multiple windows standard multimedia audio devices
> (*not* ASIO devices which are in their own little world acessible to only
> a subset of audio programs), should have some kind of menu for selecting
> which audio device is used for various functions.
>
> For example Audion/CEP has a function for setting "Device Order", under
> the Options command.
>
>> the SB will be used for recording a source plugged into the
>> back, and the built-in card will be used to play CDs out
>> the front panel as originally configured.
>
> This is true for any program that is designed to let the choice of default
> device be set by the Windows Control panel.
>
>> I don't know how to do this. Can anyone give me help.
>
> The central point of control related to this issue is the "Sounds and
> Audio Devices" applet in the Windows Control Panel.

OK. Control Panel > Sounds and audio devices > Audio tab. The only device
mentioned is the Sound Blaster Audigy card. This is true for both recording
and playback. If I switch to the Hardware tab, it lists both of my CD/DVD
drives as well as the original drive that came with the computer (in spite
of the fact that it's been removed physically.) The built-in sound card on
the mother board is not mentioned anywhere in Sounds and audio devices.

If I could figure out how to uninstall the Sound Blaster card (without
removing the card from the computer) it might reinstall the built-in sound
card. Then I could find out what it's called.

Does any of this make sense?

Thanks,

Norm

[Romeo Rondeau]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Cornelius wrote:
>> My example of this is the setup I use to DJ. I'm using OTS Turntables
>> software - and use my main soundcard (ESI Juli@) to drive the system
>> and use the onboard card for cue.
>
> That's a pretty specialized application and I'd never think of it in a
> month of Sundays, but it's one that really requires two independently-
> fed outputs. What you really need (and I'll bet your software provides
> for it) is a multi-channel sound card with one set of outputs for the
> "house" and another for the cue channel. If you got it to work, I
> guess two separate cards makes for a reasonable substitute.
>

He'll never keep them in sync :-)

[Geoff]

Anthony Fremont wrote:
> wrote:
>> I bought a Compaq computer with an integrated sound card, the kind
>> that's built in to the mother board. The input and output
>> connections are on the front of the computer. In addition, I
>> installed a Creative Sound Blaster PCI card; its connections are on
>> the back of the computer. After going through the installation
>> process, I find that this new sound card has replaced the original
>> built-in card--which is OK in general. But now I want to be able to
>> use both of these sound cards at the same time. the SB will be used
>> for recording a source plugged into the back, and the built-in card
>> will be used to play CDs out the front panel as originally
>> configured.
>> I don't know how to do this. Can anyone give me help. It seems
>> every sound card assumes it's the only one on the computer.
>
> Many motherboards with integrated sound automatically disable the
> built-in sound when another sound device is plugged in. I don't
> really know why the manufactures do this since having multiple sound
> cards working together is not that that tough.

And how exactly do th mobos know that there is another soundcard plugged in
?

geoff

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> The central point of control related to this issue is
>> the "Sounds and Audio Devices" applet in the Windows
>> Control Panel.
>
> OK. Control Panel > Sounds and audio devices > Audio
> tab. The only device mentioned is the Sound Blaster
> Audigy card. This is true for both recording and
> playback.

Sounds like either your motherboard never had an audio interface, or you
turned it off with a Bios setting, or you disabled it with the device
manager.

> If I switch to the Hardware tab, it lists both
> of my CD/DVD drives as well as the original drive that
> came with the computer (in spite of the fact that it's
> been removed physically.)

There's a way to clear that old setting, but it probably causes no harm.

> The built-in sound card on
> the mother board is not mentioned anywhere in Sounds and
> audio devices.

Is there a driver for it in the Device Manager?

> If I could figure out how to uninstall the Sound Blaster
> card (without removing the card from the computer) it
> might reinstall the built-in sound card. Then I could
> find out what it's called.

It used to work, right?

> Does any of this make sense?

Yes, subject to the additional issues related to BIOS settings and the
possibility of disabling the system board audio interface with the Device
Manager.

[Mike Rivers]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:

> He'll never keep them in sync :-)

DJs do it manually. ;)

No need for sample accurate sync for cueing anyway. But you knew that.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:06:29 +1300, "Geoff" >
wrote:

>> Many motherboards with integrated sound automatically disable the
>> built-in sound when another sound device is plugged in. I don't
>> really know why the manufactures do this since having multiple sound
>> cards working together is not that that tough.
>
>And how exactly do th mobos know that there is another soundcard plugged in
>?

I'd been wondering about that too. For this to be done at motherboard
level, BIOS would have to detect that there was a card installed, and
that it was a soundcard? How would it cope with a USB or Firewire
interface?

[Geoff]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:06:29 +1300, "Geoff" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Many motherboards with integrated sound automatically disable the
>>> built-in sound when another sound device is plugged in. I don't
>>> really know why the manufactures do this since having multiple sound
>>> cards working together is not that that tough.
>>
>> And how exactly do th mobos know that there is another soundcard
>> plugged in ?
>
> I'd been wondering about that too. For this to be done at motherboard
> level, BIOS would have to detect that there was a card installed, and
> that it was a soundcard? How would it cope with a USB or Firewire
> interface?

Yes, BIOS has no way of knowing the nature of an istalled IDE card. No BIOS
that I've ever seen or heard of at least. That's why I think the comment is
a load of , um, incorrect.

geoff

[Cornelius]

On 29 Jan 2007 15:46:16 -0800, "Mike Rivers" >
wrote:

>
>Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>
>> He'll never keep them in sync :-)
>
>DJs do it manually. ;)
>
>No need for sample accurate sync for cueing anyway. But you knew that.

All I really use the cue for is to listen to a song if I can't
remember how it starts or what it sounds like so I can add it to the
playlist in the appropriate place. The software does the work - beat
matching, crossfade, etc., better than I ever could.

And yes, the software will use a multi-channel card if one is
installed.

[Romeo Rondeau]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>
>> He'll never keep them in sync :-)
>
> DJs do it manually. ;)
>
> No need for sample accurate sync for cueing anyway. But you knew that.
>

What if he's trying to sync a couple of beats before a crossfade? But
you knew that :-)

[Geoff]

Markus Mietling wrote:
> Geoff wrote in >:
>
>> Laurence Payne wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:06:29 +1300, "Geoff" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Many motherboards with integrated sound automatically disable the
>>>>> built-in sound when another sound device is plugged in. I don't
>>>>> really know why the manufactures do this since having multiple
>>>>> sound cards working together is not that that tough.
>>>>
>>>> And how exactly do th mobos know that there is another soundcard
>>>> plugged in ?
>>>
>>> I'd been wondering about that too. For this to be done at
>>> motherboard level, BIOS would have to detect that there was a card
>>> installed, and that it was a soundcard? How would it cope with a
>>> USB or Firewire interface?
>>
>> Yes, BIOS has no way of knowing the nature of an istalled IDE card.
>> No BIOS that I've ever seen or heard of at least.
>
> Why, you heard of one in
> didn't you?

I read that, but I don't necessarily believe it just because somebody
though/said it happened in a USENET post.

It is possible, but in the scores of mobos, general PCs, and DAWs that I've
had anything to do with I have never come across it..

> Or else you could at least try a quick google search for, say, the
> words "bios" "audio" "auto" "detect"? You'd find plenty of evidence
> among the first hundred hits, like the assertion that "Most newer
> motherboard will auto detect that a sound card is installed and
> automatically disable the onboard sound" from www.techspot.com.

Well that's a pretty general statement.


> Considering that you chose to parade your ignorance without making the
> slightest effort to get your facts straight first, I might be forgiven
> for thinking that you are full of, um, liquor.


As you like ...

geoff

[Daniel Mandic]

Markus Mietling wrote:

> Or else you could at least try a quick google search for, say, the
> words "bios" "audio" "auto" "detect"? You'd find plenty of evidence
> among the first hundred hits, like the assertion that "Most newer
> motherboard will auto detect that a sound card is installed and
> automatically disable the onboard sound" from www.techspot.com.
>

:-)))))

You mean you cannot get rid of it.... even when diasabling it manually
in the BIOS.

Modern PC's are just CRAP.

> Considering that you chose to parade your ignorance without making the
> slightest effort to get your facts straight first, I might be forgiven
> for thinking that you are full of, um, liquor.
>
> --MM

I don't think so.

IDE Controller is not found by BIOS. Only the onboard Controller.
Except you have a board with possible/available extender-cards, which
are already implemented into Main-BIOS, mainly SCSI stuff, not IDE.




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

[Anthony Fremont]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:19:07 -0600, "Anthony Fremont"
> > wrote:
>
>> Many motherboards with integrated sound automatically disable the
>> built-in sound when another sound device is plugged in. I don't
>> really know why the manufactures do this since having multiple sound
>> cards working together is not that that tough.
>
> Which motherboard does that? I've never experienced it happening.

Nearly every Gigabyte board that I've used has two settings for the onboard
sound: "DISABLED" and "AUTO". In "AUTO" mode, the onboard sound device
vanishes as soon as you put a sound card in a PCI slot.


> I suppose the installation of a new card might set it as default
> device in Windows. But that's a lot different to disabling the
> integrated audio at moherboard level.

[Anthony Fremont]

Geoff wrote:
> Laurence Payne wrote:
\
> Yes, BIOS has no way of knowing the nature of an istalled IDE card.
> No BIOS that I've ever seen or heard of at least. That's why I think
> the comment is a load of , um, incorrect.

You must mean PCI cards, not IDE. At any rate, the motherboard can indeed
tell the nature of the device. They are categorized. Haven't you ever seen
the yellow question marked devices in the windos device manager? Windos
knows the category of an installed device, even without a driver installed,
so does the BIOS. Haven't you ever seen the list of devices detected by the
BIOS before windos starts?

Perhaps you should stick with what you know and understand that others may
know things that you don't before making insulting statements.

[Anthony Fremont]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Sounds like either your motherboard never had an audio interface, or
> you turned it off with a Bios setting, or you disabled it with the
> device manager.

Or.....the motherboard simply turned it off when it detected the new card.
It really is that simple, end of story.
:-)

[Anthony Fremont]

Geoff wrote:

> And how exactly do th mobos know that there is another soundcard
> plugged in ?

It reads it from the card during the device discovery and enumeration
process.

Good news for some people. This comment was taken from pci.c in Linux
kernel 2.6.18:

/*
* On ASUS A8V and A8V Deluxe boards, the onboard AC97 audio controller
* and MC97 modem controller are disabled when a second PCI soundcard is
* present. This patch, tweaking the VT8237 ISA bridge, enables them.
* -- bjd
*/

So it appears that at least some boards can have the built in audio working
with another PCI sound card, the BIOS makers still like to shut it off.

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:11:58 -0600, "Anthony Fremont"
> wrote:

>> Laurence Payne wrote:
>\
>> Yes, BIOS has no way of knowing the nature of an istalled IDE card.
>> No BIOS that I've ever seen or heard of at least. That's why I think
>> the comment is a load of , um, incorrect.
>
>You must mean PCI cards, not IDE. At any rate, the motherboard can indeed
>tell the nature of the device. They are categorized. Haven't you ever seen
>the yellow question marked devices in the windos device manager? Windos
>knows the category of an installed device, even without a driver installed,
>so does the BIOS. Haven't you ever seen the list of devices detected by the
>BIOS before windos starts?
>
>Perhaps you should stick with what you know and understand that others may
>know things that you don't before making insulting statements.


That wasn't my statement. Please attribute quotes correctly.

[Anthony Fremont]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> That wasn't my statement. Please attribute quotes correctly.

Sorry, I missed your name when I was trimming your comments from the post.

[Arny Krueger]

"Anthony Fremont" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Sounds like either your motherboard never had an audio
>> interface, or you turned it off with a Bios setting, or
>> you disabled it with the device manager.

> Or.....the motherboard simply turned it off when it
> detected the new card.

I've never seen such a thing happen, and I've set up plenty of opportunities
for that to happen. Doing so seems to be very presumptious.

> It really is that simple, end of story. :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Anthony Fremont" > wrote in message


> So it appears that at least some boards can have the
> built in audio working with another PCI sound card, the
> BIOS makers still like to shut it off.

I generally leave the onboard audio interface operational for system sounds,
and the like. Since onboard sound quality has improved quite a bit, I might
use it for light headphone monitoring and the like. I like to reserve the
output channels on the better audio interface for situations where quality
really matters and listening levels and routing are oriented for critical
uses. That way, the usual beeps and buzzes aren't thundering out at high
levels.

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:47:31 -0600, "Anthony Fremont"
> wrote:

>Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> That wasn't my statement. Please attribute quotes correctly.
>
>Sorry, I missed your name when I was trimming your comments from the post.
>

Ta

[Laurence Payne]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:57:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>I generally leave the onboard audio interface operational for system sounds,
>and the like. Since onboard sound quality has improved quite a bit, I might
>use it for light headphone monitoring and the like. I like to reserve the
>output channels on the better audio interface for situations where quality
>really matters and listening levels and routing are oriented for critical
>uses. That way, the usual beeps and buzzes aren't thundering out at high
>levels.

You use system sounds? It's a long time since I let my computer make
any sound I hadn't specifically asked it to :-)

[Daniel Mandic]

Arny Krueger wrote:


> I've never seen such a thing happen, and I've set up plenty of
> opportunities for that to happen. Doing so seems to be very
> presumptious.
>
> > It really is that simple, end of story. :-)


Hi Arny!



Like changing the Engine to a Benzin-driven type and still having the
possibility to fuel Diesel :-))



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic