TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Advantages to upgrading to a better soundcard?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Advantages to upgrading to a better soundcard?

I've been using the Audiophile 2496 for a couple of years now. Its a basic entry level card that runs about 80-90 bucks. There are plenty of better, more expensive soundcards out there so I'm wondering would an upgrade really benefit me and if so, in what way? Does better circuitry and higher quality components equal better sound? What is the advantage to moving up to a better card?

Thanks in advance!

Are you recording, or just using your soundcard to monitor?

Advantages:

There will be benefits whether you are using the card to record/route otb to hardware fx and processors or whether you are just using it to monitor through the DA converters.

If you are using it just to monitor, upgrading could result in better stereo imaging, clarity and seperation of the sound.

You probably wont hear a massive difference in quality though unless you have a good acoustically treated room and good monitoring. What converters are you thinking of upgrading to? You probably wont hear a huge difference unless you upgrade to at least mid level converters such as RME or apogee. You will notice a huge difference (depending on your monitoring) if you upgrade to high end converters (mytek, lavry, prism, cranesong etc)

The benefits are going to be a lot bigger if you are recording and using outboard fx. The signal is often degraded a lot more when sending a signal back and forth through the AD/DA converters of a lower quality converter.

Re: Advantages to upgrading to a better soundcard?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnus I've been using the Audiophile 2496 for a couple of years now. Its a basic entry level card that runs about 80-90 bucks. There are plenty of better, more expensive soundcards out there so I'm wondering would an upgrade really benefit me and if so, in what way? Does better circuitry and higher quality components equal better sound? What is the advantage to moving up to a better card? Thanks in advance!

I used that same card for years and it was a reliable good sounding piece of kit - probably on of the best value soundcards ever made.

As Danni said, You won't be able to take advantage of the better quality DAC's in a superior soundcard unless the other factors are complimentary of it.

The most important factor is what monitors you use. If they are entry level of very basic then don't bother - you will not hear the difference. If they are decent to good (such as mackie HR 824s, Genelecs, Focals, K&H, upper range Yamaha's, Quested, etc.) then it's worth thinking about a better soundcard.

After that, other considerations come in to play - room treatment, audio cables used, proper listening position, etc.

If you're serious about it and at some point can get round to these considerations as well, then do it.

Apogee($$$$), Motu($$) and RME ($$$) are all worthy brands but it really is a case of YGWYPF.

Thanks for the responses. Dannib that is very informative. I'm doing no recording at this point and just using it for monitoring. So your line there that says:

"If you are using it just to monitor, upgrading could result in better stereo imaging, clarity and seperation of the sound."

That is sort of what I was looking for. Please forgive me but when you ask what converters I'm thinking of upgrading to, do you mean what type of soundcard I'm looking to upgrade? Or do you outboard FX such as hardware reverbs and compressors and things of that nature? I'm possibly using the wrong terms as I don't have a lot of gear knowledge.

Do you have some recommendations? I'm using a PC so the Apogee would be out as that is Mac only I believe. Thanks in advance!

Magnus,

Yes i mean the soundcard.

A/D and D/A (analogue to digital and digital to analogue) converters are a very important part of the propfessional studio. DA works to try and give a completely true representation of the audio that is being played from a digital medium (storage device) through an analogue one (monitor speakers in your case).

First you need to understand AD conversion:

To be able to re-produce audio in a digital form, the analogue audio signal is passed through an analogue to digital converter (A/D) which involves the process of converting the analogue (varying voltage) signal into a number of samples which are sampled at a rate of thousands of times per second to reproduce an accurate digital form of the original analogue signal. These samples are represented by a number of binary numbers (zeros and ones).

Every time the waveform is measured (several timer per second) a binary number (zeros and ones) as mentioned above is created. These numbers represent the voltage of the waveform at the time it is measured. This process is described as quantization. The binary numbers are called bits, which is short for binary digit.

At this point, the binary numbers are stored magnetically onto disk. This process is known as coding or channel coding. The signal at this point is in a full digital format.

After the analogue signal is converted to a digital form as described above, it is then possible to reproduce this digital signal and convert it back into an analogue signal. This process is called D/A conversion (digital to analogue conversion). This is a process of converting the binary numbers back into an analogue signal made up of voltage steps. At this point, the signal is then passed through another filter called an anti-imaging filter which smoothes the rugged steps in the signal, resulting in the original analogue signal.

Different devices can reproduce and convert digital audio with different results, depending on the quality of the A/D and D/A converters. This conversion also relates to what bit-depth you are using.

The bit-depth relates to the binary numbers as described above, and results in the fact that the higher the bit-depth, the more accurate each measurement will be sampled. The higher the bit-depth, the less chance you have of the digital audio signal distorting. This is simply because it is being sampled more accurately, thus giving more headroom.

So you can see why converters are so important, especially to professional recording studios.

I hope that helps. I just felt like giving out some useful information.

Check out these threads:

1, This ones more basic but is on the same subject as you're asking about with good explainations...

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=495570

2, We get quite techy in this but is worth the read.... It goes in to real depth about why some AD's are better than others....

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=495606

Dannib, a humongous thank you for such an informative and helpful post. Your detailed explanation makes everything much clearer. DJ RANN thanks for those links I will check them out.

So after reading those threads and doing some research online, I was thinking of deciding between the following since I'm on a PC:

1. Emu 0404 USB 2.0 Audio/MIDI Interface
2. Focusrite Saffire
3. MOTU UltraLite-MK3

Which would you recommend? I looked at the RME Fireface 400 and 800 but they are just way too expensive for me at this point in my life.

Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by Magnus So after reading those threads and doing some research online, I was thinking of deciding between the following since I'm on a PC: 1. Emu 0404 USB 2.0 Audio/MIDI Interface 2. Focusrite Saffire 3. MOTU UltraLite-MK3 Which would you recommend? I looked at the RME Fireface 400 and 800 but they are just way too expensive for me at this point in my life. Thanks!

The RME's while really good are just out of most people's budget (including mine).

I actually used to provide tech support for all these brands.....

Stay away from the EMU cards - I don't think they are really any better in terms of quality that the M-audio and I have personally seen an EMU 1212 card catch fire while in someones computer.

The focusrite is decent but again, I'm not sure how much of a step up it is. Focusrite make good kit, the saffire is fine, but not amazing - I know several people who use them without any problems but IMO, the motu offers the best quality, stability and plenty of connectivity for the price. I think out those three the Motu wins on all fronts.

Hope this helps.

Apogee Duet

quote:

Originally posted by spolitta Apogee Duet

He's on a PC and the duet is mac only......

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN He's on a PC and the duet is mac only......

Exactly. I would totally go with the Apogee Duet if I was on a Mac as I've heard such good things about it.

Thanks for the info DJ RANN that helps for sure. If there is any other soundcards in the price range of the MOTU that you think might be a better choice feel free to suggest them. I think the MOTU runs around $550 or so and I think that is about the most I'd be willing to spend on a soundcard upgrade.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnus Exactly. I would totally go with the Apogee Duet if I was on a Mac as I've heard such good things about it. Thanks for the info DJ RANN that helps for sure. If there is any other soundcards in the price range of the MOTU that you think might be a better choice feel free to suggest them. I think the MOTU runs around $550 or so and I think that is about the most I'd be willing to spend on a soundcard upgrade.

No problem.

The Duet is without doubt the best 2 in 2 out interface available but I still think that $500+ it's a little bit over priced for what you get.

Quality wise, I think you're on to a winner with Motu at that price range - you could look in to getting a Motu 828 (Mk2 or higher only - not Mk 1) second hand - they run at about $450 to $600 ans offer loads of functionality/connectivity and are really solid units.

New, the Motu ultralite is the best bet at that price range for PC.

I heard the Duet was rubbish even compared to the ensemble, which is far from the quality of the X series which made their name. Haven't personally tried it though.

From what I can see, the best contenders seem to be
Presonus > MOTU > RME > Lynx > Benchmark/UA

With RME probably representing the best quality at the lowest price. Once you get into Lynx it sounds like your paying for diminishing returns. I've decided I'm probably going for a fireface 800 when I have money - which may never happen.

Can somone explain to me how you can get better stereo imaging from a better converter though? Because if audio channel is on a seperate physical wire, then they should be completely discrete anyway?
I understand how you can have better clocking and how that would make a difference. And of cours lower THD and noise floors and what not, but stereo imaging?!

The most important things to remember IMO, is that
1. just because it has the brand name doesn't mean its the same quality as that brand name's top models. IE, the fact that a 2 Ch interface is carrying the apogee name doesn't mean its got the same quality used in their 16 channel interface.

2. You NEED really good monitors to hear a difference. REALLY good monitors means a lot of money. If its not K&H, Gens, Dyns or Focals, then you're not going to get much benefit from your obscenely expensive converters. Mackies or yamahas aren't gonna cut it.

3. The most competition is in the mid range of the converter market, the higher you go, the less returns you get for the price.

thats my 2 c based on my reading recently.

checkout the Presonus Audiobox usb or the Firebox

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips From what I can see, the best contenders seem to be Presonus > MOTU > RME > Lynx > Benchmark/UA

??? Presonus beats MOTU, et al?!!! I think you've got your list (or your "greater than" symbols) reversed.

Overall, I think the OP is getting some pretty bad advice here. If he's not recording, most of the cards that are being recommended here will be serious overkill and a waste of his money. The majority of the cost for the MOTUs, RMEs, Presonus, etc. cards that are being mentioned here goes for features that he won't be using - XLR inputs and quality preamps, line ins for direct recording, digital/lightpipe ins/outs, multiple outputs for different monitors/headphone mixes, etc. I do a lot of recording and I use virtually every one of the ins/outs on my MOTU 828mkII, but I can't imagine spending that kind of cash on a unit simply for playback.

http://www.audiopioneers.net/forum/...read.php?t=2924 -- information about blowing thousands on expensive converters.

quote:

Originally posted by alanzo http://www.audiopioneers.net/forum/...read.php?t=2924 -- information about blowing thousands on expensive converters.

cheers, that was helpful mate

i think i'm starting to figure that there's a minimum level of quality, but over that it can get to be pretty relative, which is just what i need to hear since i don't have enough spare change to blow the big bucks anyway...

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik ??? Presonus beats MOTU, et al?!!! I think you've got your list (or your "greater than" symbols) reversed. Overall, I think the OP is getting some pretty bad advice here. If he's not recording, most of the cards that are being recommended here will be serious overkill and a waste of his money. The majority of the cost for the MOTUs, RMEs, Presonus, etc. cards that are being mentioned here goes for features that he won't be using - XLR inputs and quality preamps, line ins for direct recording, digital/lightpipe ins/outs, multiple outputs for different monitors/headphone mixes, etc. I do a lot of recording and I use virtually every one of the ins/outs on my MOTU 828mkII, but I can't imagine spending that kind of cash on a unit simply for playback.

haha, I sort of meant that list to be in order o inreasing quality, obviously
Chances are that the OP will be recording some synths eventually, and most of the good converers are multi channel rather than 2 channel like the duet. I suppose a fireface 400 might be better than an 800, but I'm really just throwing ideas around. Most 2 channel interfaces are fairly rubbish unless your going for a $3000 mastering cnverter, which is definately overkill IMO.

Thanks all! Yeah I won't be doing much recording anytime soon. I have a Virus Ti so I've never had to record any synths in. I'm really leaning toward the MOTU Ultralite MK3 at this point I think its the best choice in my price range.

And Alan I just read your thread and your case is almost identical to mine. Same soundcard, same monitors, same sequencer. Its really got me thinking...

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips I heard the Duet was rubbish even compared to the ensemble, which is far from the quality of the X series which made their name. Haven't personally tried it though. From what I can see, the best contenders seem to be Presonus > MOTU > RME > Lynx > Benchmark/UA With RME probably representing the best quality at the lowest price. Once you get into Lynx it sounds like your paying for diminishing returns. I've decided I'm probably going for a fireface 800 when I have money - which may never happen. Can somone explain to me how you can get better stereo imaging from a better converter though? Because if audio channel is on a seperate physical wire, then they should be completely discrete anyway? I understand how you can have better clocking and how that would make a difference. And of cours lower THD and noise floors and what not, but stereo imaging?! The most important things to remember IMO, is that 1. just because it has the brand name doesn't mean its the same quality as that brand name's top models. IE, the fact that a 2 Ch interface is carrying the apogee name doesn't mean its got the same quality used in their 16 channel interface. 2. You NEED really good monitors to hear a difference. REALLY good monitors means a lot of money. If its not K&H, Gens, Dyns or Focals, then you're not going to get much benefit from your obscenely expensive converters. Mackies or yamahas aren't gonna cut it. 3. The most competition is in the mid range of the converter market, the higher you go, the less returns you get for the price. thats my 2 c based on my reading recently.

I think the difference here is that it's what you've read about and not what you've actually used (no offense meant). Other peoples references are always useful but knowing from a personal or professional perspective is a different thing and trumps it everytime.

Magnus, you didn't say what your monitors are or if you're recording or using any outboard sends or inserts. Are you using HR824s and cubase then?

Basically, as a 5 year previous user of a 2496, I was more than happy with it for my uses (cubase, all softsynths, one drum machine for midi programming and not very good speakers).

If you're not going to be recording (by this I mean ever - it's a big loss if you have to upgrade again later to more I/O), then the benefits of going to another soundcard are going to be slightly more limited. Having said that you will notice a difference in audio clarity, and especially so if you ever decide to use higher sample rates or record or go in and out of the card.

As for your mackie speakers, don't listen to anyone who tries to tell you they're not good enough, especially for EDM - it's elitist bullshit. Yes, focals, genes etc are better and if I could, I would but the 824's are perfectly good for commercially released music and if you can't get to that level on them, then it's not the speakers fault.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnus Thanks all! Yeah I won't be doing much recording anytime soon. I have a Virus Ti so I've never had to record any synths in. I'm really leaning toward the MOTU Ultralite MK3 at this point I think its the best choice in my price range. And Alan I just read your thread and your case is almost identical to mine. Same soundcard, same monitors, same sequencer. Its really got me thinking...

Thats a good start in your position I'd say

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I think the difference here is that it's what you've read about and not what you've actually used (no offense meant). Other peoples references are always useful but knowing from a personal or professional perspective is a different thing and trumps it everytime. Magnus, you didn't say what your monitors are or if you're recording or using any outboard sends or inserts. Are you using HR824s and cubase then? Basically, as a 5 year previous user of a 2496, I was more than happy with it for my uses (cubase, all softsynths, one drum machine for midi programming and not very good speakers). If you're not going to be recording (by this I mean ever - it's a big loss if you have to upgrade again later to more I/O), then the benefits of going to another soundcard are going to be slightly more limited. Having said that you will notice a difference in audio clarity, and especially so if you ever decide to use higher sample rates or record or go in and out of the card. As for your mackie speakers, don't listen to anyone who tries to tell you they're not good enough, especially for EDM - it's elitist bullshit. Yes, focals, genes etc are better and if I could, I would but the 824's are perfectly good for commercially released music and if you can't get to that level on them, then it's not the speakers fault.

Thats all good advice I'd say.
I do have a bit of experience with different converters, MOTUs (Decent), M Audio (poor), focusrite (reasonable) etc. So I do have some idea what I'm talking about I just haven't had the chance to try a lynx yet.

I think MOTU and mackies are more than good enough for ANY type of music - althought if I was recording I'd go RME to be sure. Like I was saying though, it would be silly to get a Lynx and run it through them, because its the two pieces just aren't on the same level.

I'd say a good dedicated digital audio converter is worth at most $700. Me personally, I'm waiting for an apogee Mini-DAC to show up on eBay so I can get live.com 25% off and 10% of PayPal /w coupon.

Like Alan Nimmo said, the more you spend, the less difference there will be. $700 worth of difference is enough for any hobby producer. If you're producing the new (insert big name here) album, you probably will benefit from a $5,000 DAC.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.