A better DAC-- close enough to bite, or learning to use a Soundblaster a bit better

[ericzim]

Ubuntu 10.4

I'm not seeing the Yamaha listed on the ALSA supported cards list-- it may emulate something else.

Here's the list: http://alsa.opensrc.org/index.php/Sound_cards


If you still have the 5.1 youo can try the Kx drivers under Xp with ASIO also:
http://kxproject.com/

I'd be interested in how the SB rear channel compares to your Yamaha.

Looks like Linux support for the OPL3 SA3 which is a variant of the Yamaha I have. The daughter card for multi channel out would be a concern. I believe the 5.1 Live is actually a different chipset than the original Live card. The EMU 10k1-EDF on the original vs Environmental Audio EMU 10K1-NGF on the 5.1. The 5.1 might use a different DAC as well. I have an exta 5.1 card if you want it for experiments and such.

 

[jhaan92]

See, This is what I find odd. When I compare a factory CD to an mp3 file ripped from that CD, I cannot tell the difference, provided that the bitrate is 320 or above.

However, I can tell the difference when I take my half-speed master, record it onto a WAV file through my software (which is designed for it), and my original LP. I have tried several different CD players, including the 24-bit Denon that my dad has. It's not that the quality is bad, but the air of ambience is missing.

However, I can take that same album, and record it onto a Maxell metal 90 minute tape with the Pioneer CT-F1250 cassette deck, and have a very difficult time telling the difference. The only reason I can tell it's a tape is because Dolby B doesn't get rid of quite enough tape hiss.

Any thoughts?

 

[jhaan92]

The reason as to why I asked if I could make 24-bit compact discs is because there are so many 24-bit factory cds out there on the market now, and there is a difference in quality between a 16-bit edition of Dave Brubecks "Time Out", and the 24-bit edition.



-Jason

 

[jammasterj13]

Soon as funds are available for it, I'll be trying something. If you still have a SB Live! around I'd be interested in what you thought of the rear with better drivers/routing vs the Asus. :thmbsp:

It was an X-Fi Xtreme music card that finally did my head in, the wdm drivers kept uninstalling themselves on reboot. So I ripped it out and bought an Asus.

Creative hardware is good stuff but the support is bad, bloated drivers etc etc etc.

You can have the X-Fi card if you pay the postage from Manchester to Nueva Inglaterra

I needed a reliable soundcard as I like to produce my own dance music and DJ out out.
To be honest I prefer to not faff around with a signal path, I just use a decent cable plugged into the Asus rear end, the rear inputs all have LED shiny disco lights, oooooooohhhhhhh.:yes:

I guess Creative either likes you or hates you, every mofo soundcard from Creative has given me grief!

 

[garww]

I used the rear outs for a long time. I didn't do a lot of burning with it, but I did record off the LPs and It sounded great.

The Yamaha chips are in a lot of soundcards, so you will get basic support. When I first started burning, I had much better results under Linux.

I like creative cards, but their software sucks. Auzen has the best thing going last I looked - soundfont support.

With the live, I used the Kx and the hacked Audigy drivers with good results. I still have ensonic, sb16, the pci128, and some yamaha cards in ISA.

I bot a cheap Toshiba for DAW recording a couple years ago and use it's on-board realtek along with the expresscard X-Fi (Audigy chip) and a USB Tascam and ToneLab. I got around to trying a new Ubuntu Studio for AMD64 and it's not too bad. External devices like the Soundblaster and Tascam are recognized, but you have to enable all the processes by hand. At any rate, the realtek is giving me great performance.

I do most of my recording at 16-bit. Though higher resolution gives me enhanced data, I don't always see it as being realistic. iF i'M DOING HEAVY DATA MANIPULATION,i DO WANT THE EXTRA DATA HIGHER RATES AND DEpth gives me.

I use three different MP3 encoders and it's amazing how well they do, but I can't match a wave file in fidelity. With some types of music, it's not important : )

 

[oneinchside]

See, This is what I find odd. When I compare a factory CD to an mp3 file ripped from that CD, I cannot tell the difference, provided that the bitrate is 320 or above.

However, I can tell the difference when I take my half-speed master, record it onto a WAV file through my software (which is designed for it), and my original LP. I have tried several different CD players, including the 24-bit Denon that my dad has. It's not that the quality is bad, but the air of ambience is missing.

However, I can take that same album, and record it onto a Maxell metal 90 minute tape with the Pioneer CT-F1250 cassette deck, and have a very difficult time telling the difference. The only reason I can tell it's a tape is because Dolby B doesn't get rid of quite enough tape hiss.

Any thoughts?

It may have a lot to do with your playback system. On my OB's I can hear differences more than on my main system, although my main system really sounds much better. It's just that the horns on the OBs are very picky about siblance and any kind of smearing in the high end, no forgiveness at all. At the same time the mid range and lower end on them lacks compared to the AMT II's in the other room. Maybe it's just that the ribbon tweeter in the AMT's is so much smoother that I don't notice. But with these little horns it goes from wow to *aaaaack* in a heartbeat.

The best example I can think of is the Tigerlilly album by Natalie Merchant, the edge of her voice can go from fascinating to grating depending on the recording-- and the remastered Gold pressing is a whole different level of detail and space. Another is Poor Boy by Michael Ruff-- when the background singers come in it can either be a wall of sound or individual voices, easily distinguished and placed in the image, and each corresponding reverberation. Or it can be a big ol' glare of nastiness.

But to really answer your question-- if your recording from an analog source, yes you should definitely hear the difference between 44,96 and 192. And if you make a non-obtrusive compression of any of the above it should still be darn close.

But remember, when you listen to the vinyl you are hearing one set of source components, CD another, digital recordings another, and tape still another. And you may not be disturbed by the changes that are made by change "x" vs change "y". And as garww said, for some music, it just isn't important. If your CD is really a CD, then it's 44k, 16bit. The CD player may upsample it, but that's still the source. Now if you burned a SACD or a BluRay coming from a 96k source you should hear the difference. (I think)

I guess that was the surprise here for me on my 'puter system, was that without changing components, I had a whole new string of hardware that I could use just by changing routing with software. That was a nice surprise.

 

[oneinchside]

It was an X-Fi Xtreme music card that finally did my head in, the wdm drivers kept uninstalling themselves on reboot. So I ripped it out and bought an Asus.

Creative hardware is good stuff but the support is bad, bloated drivers etc etc etc.

You can have the X-Fi card if you pay the postage from Manchester to Nueva Inglaterra

I needed a reliable soundcard as I like to produce my own dance music and DJ out out.
To be honest I prefer to not faff around with a signal path, I just use a decent cable plugged into the Asus rear end, the rear inputs all have LED shiny disco lights, oooooooohhhhhhh.:yes:

I guess Creative either likes you or hates you, every mofo soundcard from Creative has given me grief!

Yep the original drivers were bad. I actually forgot about them since I've been automaticaly installing Kx under XP for so long. And I'm just not a windows fan, so under Ubuntu I used other things (talk about waiting for drivers, sheesh! Things sure have changed in the past 10 years, it's great now, but there was a time... )

It's odd because I had read that the Asus was using the same core driver as the SB, maybe not I guess. And I *think* by the time they got to your card they had matched output paths on all channel, it was just the original Live! series that had the 2 different DACs for front and rear. Odd that it was a cost saving measure in their production... that sounded better.

I'm glad to hear good things about the Asus cards though, it's one of the ones I was looking at as an upgrade path.

 

[oneinchside]

Looks like Linux support for the OPL3 SA3 which is a variant of the Yamaha I have. The daughter card for multi channel out would be a concern. I believe the 5.1 Live is actually a different chipset than the original Live card. The EMU 10k1-EDF on the original vs Environmental Audio EMU 10K1-NGF on the 5.1. The 5.1 might use a different DAC as well. I have an exta 5.1 card if you want it for experiments and such.

Actually there were a bunch of variants it seems, especially with the OEM cards. AFAIK, the main difference between the Live! and the 5.1 was in multichannel support. The original Live! was 4 channel, then one with s/pdif 5.1 channel, and then one with both analog and s/pdif 5.1. The other difference was the use of the emu 10k1x on the dell OEM rather than the 10k1 on the retail cards, then after many complaints the Dell cards started coming with the (better) 10k1 chip. All of them still used a seperate Phillips DAC for the rear channels. At least as far as I know right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_Blaster_Live!

I am tempted to try to tap into the output from the DAC and bypass the built in op-amp, play with different caps, etc. :scratch2:


Sheesh this stuff is a rat's nest of options isn't it?

 

[oneinchside]

If you believe you can tell the difference between 24 and 16, then try an ABX test using Foobar2000 (freeware). Bet you can't. I thought I could and I can't even hear a difference between 320 mp3 and 24 bit on most stuff.

ABX testing is the only way to prove you can hear a difference, everything else is just hot air and subjective opinion. I say that as someone who got his butt handed to him by an ABX test.

I can hear the difference between something that I record at 24 bit vs 16, but I can almost never tell between a 320 variable and the original redbook.

I can REALLY hear the difference in digital effect processors for guitar-- especially in reverbs. Digitech made 2 variant of one of their pedals, the only change was the 16 vs 24 bit DAC, the reverb went from the screech of hades to "hey, maybe I could use this". Supposedly everything else stayed the same.

I really, really agree about the ABX testing, and having it blind. Psychoacoustics seem to be more effected by our eyes and fingers on buttons than anything else

 

[Catswold]

See, This is what I find odd. When I compare a factory CD to an mp3 file ripped from that CD, I cannot tell the difference, provided that the bitrate is 320 or above.

However, I can tell the difference when I take my half-speed master, record it onto a WAV file through my software (which is designed for it), and my original LP. I have tried several different CD players, including the 24-bit Denon that my dad has. It's not that the quality is bad, but the air of ambience is missing.

However, I can take that same album, and record it onto a Maxell metal 90 minute tape with the Pioneer CT-F1250 cassette deck, and have a very difficult time telling the difference. The only reason I can tell it's a tape is because Dolby B doesn't get rid of quite enough tape hiss.

Any thoughts?

Thats the difference between analog and digital. The tape is analog. Makes sense if you think of it this way, think of an analog wave as being a 700 bit sample ( I have seen it described in those terms). If you digitize it with 16 or even 24 bits, you still lose a lot of information (as to whether that is audible or not has been the subject of intense debate here and elsewhere). When you record on tape, you are still getting the whole wave, just at a slightly reduced frequency spectrum.

A lot of folks claim to hear the difference between an analog source and a digital source. I can't say one way or another since I have no way to ABX test it. I do know that subjectively I prefer the sound I hear from a good LP over a disk, but I can't say that it's not simply due to my own bias.

 

[oneinchside]

glad I use a cdp after reading this thread.;\

I know, I know.

The convenience of the 'puter has drawn me to the darkside. It's just so exhausting to open that tray and have to physically lift that monstrous platter out and put it back into a jewel case, and then walk all the way over to a shelf.

:drool:

(Actually, a lot of things I don't have a hard copy of. They were bought as a file and that's the only copy I have. Would I love to have some of them? Yeah, but long out of print and rare... but if I find em, especially vinyl.... )

 

[oneinchside]

Its a sound card that uses a Creative Labs chipset like that in the SoundBlaster cards, but the opamps are socketed for easy switching to get the best sound to your ears. I settled on the Burson Audio discrete Opamp instead of the 8pin job that came stock.

Hmmm, that sounds cool. Time to do a bit of searchin'.:scratch2:

 

[ericzim]

"I am tempted to try to tap into the output from the DAC and bypass the built in op-amp, play with different caps, etc. :scratch2:


Sheesh this stuff is a rat's nest of options isn't it?"

I did that very thing with a cheap PCI C-Media card. The results were disasterous.

 

[oneinchside]

"I am tempted to try to tap into the output from the DAC and bypass the built in op-amp, play with different caps, etc. :scratch2:


Sheesh this stuff is a rat's nest of options isn't it?"

I did that very thing with a cheap PCI C-Media card. The results were disasterous.

LOL, tell me more, tell me more

 

[FalconEddy]

I know, I know.

The convenience of the 'puter has drawn me to the darkside. It's just so exhausting to open that tray and have to physically lift that monstrous platter out and put it back into a jewel case, and then walk all the way over to a shelf.

:drool:

(Actually, a lot of things I don't have a hard copy of. They were bought as a file and that's the only copy I have. Would I love to have some of them? Yeah, but long out of print and rare... but if I find em, especially vinyl.... )

I just saw this interesting post and would like to contribute (for better or worse)

In my case, the lion's share of audio is on MANY hard drives, with triplicate backups located at different off-site locations as an ultimate safety precaution. Sure, I still have CD's, DAT, ADAT, and vinyl, but the computer is THE medium I've chosen for production. Therefore, for listening as well.

Philips' UDA1334 will definitely convert digital to analog much more accurately than the very plain-jane Audio Codec '97. Unfortunately, the AC'97 clocking was fixed at 48KHz, so there was audible distortion introduced by the EMU10K1-SEF DSP* when performing the sample-rate conversion to 44.1KHz (or 32KHz)

*Note that the EMU DSP chip was introduced on the 2nd generation Live! cards in 1998, which is the one I had.

I'll use either Mytek, or Lucid for the master clocking source during production; but it's also important to listen to the end result on the types of audio cards people will be using to listen to digital audio on older PC's, etc. Hence, the SB Live! Platinum, and SB Audigy2 ZS also need to be part of that equation for me. The same holds true for speakers. I use DynAudio Acoustics BM15A's for the actual mastering process, then listen and compare through JBL 4208's, Yamaha NS-10M's, and Sony SRS-68's.

In my business, it's important to get a wide audio perspective using different equipment used for playback and listening every so often.

. . Falcon

 

[oneinchside]

I just saw this interesting post and would like to contribute (for better or worse)

In my case, the lion's share of audio is on MANY hard drives, with triplicate backups located at different off-site locations as an ultimate safety precaution. Sure, I still have CD's, DAT, ADAT, and vinyl, but the computer is THE medium I've chosen for production. Therefore, for listening as well.

Now that's encouraging, thanks for speaking up

Philips' UDA1334 will definitely convert digital to analog much more accurately than the very plain-jane Audio Codec '97. Unfortunately, the AC'97 clocking was fixed at 48KHz, so there was audible distortion introduced by the EMU10K1-SEF DSP* when performing the sample-rate conversion to 44.1KHz (or 32KHz)

*Note that the EMU DSP chip was introduced on the 2nd generation Live! cards in 1998, which is the one I had.

I'll use either Mytek, or Lucid for the master clocking source during production; <snip>

. . Falcon

LOL, soon as I saw "Lucid" I immediately thought of Lucid Lynx, the version of Ubuntu Linux (as opposed to Fiesty Fawn or Jaunty Jackalope or whatever, they come up with some nutty names)

Since the master clock your using may well be worth more than my car...
do you have any advice on doing sample rate conversion to deal with the AC97 limitation to 48k? Is there any preferred software or process? (From what I've read the next series of cards (audigy and x-fi) used a much much better sample rate converter)

(bold in above added)

It's amazing how much you can learn around here

 

[FalconEddy]

Excellent Question. . .

Since the master clock your using may well be worth more than my car... :wink:
do you have any advice on doing sample rate conversion to deal with the AC97 limitation to 48k? Is there any preferred software or process? (From what I've read the next series of cards (audigy and x-fi) used a much much better sample rate converter)

The SB Audigy2 ZS Platinum Pro is what I'm using now, and it's lightyears ahead of the older SB cards in design, construction quality, signal processing, effects, conversions, noise floor, etc. It even uhas an IEEE 1394 Firewire interface which really helps with latency issues between external devices (as long as you have PLENTY of RAM and nice Quad-Core processors in the PC).

As far as the AC'97 is concerned, if you have the very first version of that SB Live! card (in MY book, I equate MOST first version releases of hardware as a 'PROTOTYPE'), then you're adrift at sea standing on a four board raft (probably balsa wood) that measures 3' x 3'; and no paddles to be found.

So, you can't really get to anywhere you'd like, you just have to go with the flow and put up with wherever it leads you. Sure, you could choose to modify the card, but that usually ends up as a very time consuming project with little result in world of having a sense of accomplishment.

Even the EMU10K1-SEF DSP added many anomolies when running it's sample-rate conversion algorithms. It was audible, and it really sounded like crap to the trained ear.

However, were talking about digital audio here, right? Digital means there's a file full of information about the audio; and where there's a file, there's a way to hack and modify it.

Have you attempted to simply open up a file in an editor program and change the sample-rate information in the header from 48KHz to 44.1KHz? Sometimes, depending on whatever the REAL file type is being created, you can do this.

You could also send me a wavefile, and I could perform a sample-rate conversion on it using one of my mastering software converters. I regularly have to convert from 24 bit @ 192KHz (or 96KHz), down to 16 bit @ 44.1KHz; and with the high-end wordclocks used here I generally get excellent results.

Upload a few through YouSendIt.com to FalconEddyStudios@MSN.com; Then I'll analyze them, and convert them at the highest accuracy level possible. I have some huge processing power here so even the highest quality conversions are fast. No charge, of course. Then you can download them from a link I'll send you to your personal email, or your private email here at AK.

You can't beat a deal like that. Seriously!

. . Falcon

 

[oneinchside]

The SB Audigy2 ZS Platinum Pro is what I'm using now, and it's lightyears ahead of the older SB cards in design, construction quality, signal processing, effects, conversions, noise floor, etc. It even uhas an IEEE 1394 Firewire interface which really helps with latency issues between external devices (as long as you have PLENTY of RAM and nice Quad-Core processors in the PC).

As far as the AC'97 is concerned, if you have the very first version of that SB Live! card (in MY book, I equate MOST first version releases of hardware as a 'PROTOTYPE'), then you're adrift at sea standing on a four board raft (probably balsa wood) that measures 3' x 3'; and no paddles to be found.

So, you can't really get to anywhere you'd like, you just have to go with the flow and put up with wherever it leads you. Sure, you could choose to modify the card, but that usually ends up as a very time consuming project with little result in world of having a sense of accomplishment.

Even the EMU10K1-SEF DSP added many anomolies when running it's sample-rate conversion algorithms. It was audible, and it really sounded like crap to the trained ear.

However, were talking about digital audio here, right? Digital means there's a file full of information about the audio; and where there's a file, there's a way to hack and modify it.

Have you attempted to simply open up a file in an editor program and change the sample-rate information in the header from 48KHz to 44.1KHz? Sometimes, depending on whatever the REAL file type is being created, you can do this.

You could also send me a wavefile, and I could perform a sample-rate conversion on it using one of my mastering software converters. I regularly have to convert from 24 bit @ 192KHz (or 96KHz), down to 16 bit @ 44.1KHz; and with the high-end wordclocks used here I generally get excellent results.

Upload a few through YouSendIt.com to FalconEddyStudios@MSN.com; Then I'll analyze them, and convert them at the highest accuracy level possible. I have some huge processing power here so even the highest quality conversions are fast. No charge, of course. Then you can download them from a link I'll send you to your personal email, or your private email here at AK.

You can't beat a deal like that. Seriously!

. . Falcon

Whooo Hooo! Now I'm a'fixed t'get learnt. (as my grandpa would say)

This is a really cool idea, soon as I get back from Whales Tail's today (it's a rough life having kids, I'm going to have to spend the day with mil*s in bikinis) I'll uploading a couple of tracks and try editing some headers.

I may not turn what is here now into a dream source, but I sure as hell will learn what to look and listen for a bit more. This is gold.

 

[garww]

Most all my LP dubbing was through a Marantz phono section into a SB16. While it's nothing to brag about, the resulting MP3 are slightly better than what I can download off Amazon(which can often be horrible).

The Audigy driver hack for the live card did work pretty well. I was on W98se and the driver would disconnect often( no card installed). I think it was the PAX driver.

My live is in a Dell PII 450mHz along with a Aureal and it is mostly for MIDI work.

When I got my IBM a couple years ago, I found that there were not many PCIe cards to choose from. Today, the Auzen may be my choice, but I'm still put off to spend US100 for a damn sound card.

One of my tricks is to run the sound through tube mono preamps, but even my stereo tube preamp can add some good vibes.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Sound Blaster= Crap! Suitable for MP3 and video games. Not suitable for anything else if you're serious. Bloated, buggy drivers, annoying habit of poor updates of drivers. If you are needing cheap, good, and good drivers get an Asus Xonar. Serious users should get a professional market sound card intended for high quality recording.