Is this a good sound card (Need help)

Xonar DG Maximum recording quality 24-bit/96kHz
Xonar Xense Maximum recording quality 24-bit/192kHz
Asus Xonar D2X Maximum recording quality 24-bit/192kHz
Asus Xonar DX Maximum recording quality 24-bit/192kHz
Asus Xonar Essence STX Maximum recording quality 24-bit/192kHz
Auzentech X-Fi Forte 7.1 Maximum recording quality 24-bit/192kHz
HT | OMEGA CLARO Plus+ 7.1 Maximum recording quality 24-bit/192kHz
Creative PCI Express Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Champion Maximum recording quality 24-bit/96kHz
Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium HD Maximum recording quality 24-bit/96kHz
Auzen X-Fi Bravura 7.1 Maximum recording quality 24-bit/96kHz'

EDIT: Their is more sound cards on the market that will not record at 192KHz.

I'm still happy to buy and have 24-bit/96kHz sound card, but it's a nice bonus at 192KHz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Davros said:
Its for editing to prevent clipping/rounding errors like when you edit images to end up as jpeg you use an uncompressed format until the final save.
Click to expand...
If your mixing software saves jpeg-equivalent versions of your tracks during the editing process and fecking up the quality then your software is just plain bad. It shouldn't need to touch the source material at all, all the mixing should only take place when you render the final result, and then 196kHz sampling rate is just silly nonsense. 24 bit resolution seems dubious too - the human ear just isn't a particulary high-performing instrument, but at least there's more merit to it than 192kHz samples though. ;)
 
When you do professional studio recording, let say you play saxophone to record.
at 16bit - it cannot produce accuracy - but at 24bit you will hear much better quality of how saxophone is for real and being recorded.
 
Why would saxes be more difficult to reproduce at 16bit than anything else? It doesn't seem logical.
 
Well, its digital.

Let say you speak at 48KHz, but I ONLY recorded (you) your voice at 24KHz.

16bit is NOT capable of recording reality.
 
I always liked Creative sound cards, but this round I haven't made my final decision.

If I focus on gaming - creative would be a better choice, but for recording I have to think deep about it.
 
Shtal said:
Let say you speak at 48KHz, but I ONLY recorded (you) your voice at 24KHz.
Click to expand...

But you don't so I don't speak at 48KHz so i fail to see the point. The sampling rate should be 2*what you want to record (Shannon/Niquist theorem, right?) So if we can only hear (the best of us ) up too 20 KHz is makes sense to have sampling rates in the range of 40s KHz. 96KHz+ is being used for more channels than stereo even for playback, not only recording. I'm not exactly sure why.

Shtal said:
16bit is NOT capable of recording reality.
Click to expand...

Nothing is able to record reality as you would need infinite precision :p. Practically, 24 bit allows for an increased sensitivity (there is a higher range of "volumes" being recorded). So there is more space between the lowest amplitude sound and the highest amplitude sound. While I have no personal experience (no capable sound equipment yet), this time (and unlike 48KHz+ and the likes), the difference appears to be audible. If you record 24bit and save the final track on a Cd (16bit) then the only thing you achieve is that rounding errors (if any) are indeed eliminated.

@Grall. The more dynamic an instrument is, the more bitrate it should need.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
About 5 years ago or so I saw 32bit sound cards for about $3,000 thousand dollars, but later they no longer available for some reason.

Anyway a lot of people never had a chance to compare 16bit vs. 24bit recording..

48KHz was just an example, people who have done professional recording they know limitation on 16bit compare what 24bit could offer.

EDIT: If you do plain voice recording - then 16bit will be okay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
About different sampling rates
"In September 2007, the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone."

What we really need is not higher sampling rates, but realtime holophonic encoding...
 
Shtal said:
I think I will give a chance and try creative xfi for $100 dollars: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...re=creative_sound_card-_-29-102-019-_-Product
Click to expand...

I'd say you shouldn't, if you say you like Creative ;) . I mean in general, Auzentech uses the same processor as Creative X-fi and usually better quality components (Opamps and stuff like that). Even the drivers are the same AFAIK.

So if you haven't set yourself for that specific card, picking an Auzentech in the same price range should yield better results (Edit: something like the Bravura).

Anyways, hope you'll make a choice yo will enjoy :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
entity279 said:
I'd say you shouldn't, if you say you like Creative ;) . I mean in general, Auzentech uses the same processor as Creative X-fi and usually better quality components (Opamps and stuff like that). Even the drivers are the same AFAIK.

So if you haven't set yourself for that specific card, picking an Auzentech in the same price range should yield better results (Edit: something like the Bravura).

Anyways, hope you'll make a choice yo will enjoy :)
Click to expand...

Okay!
 
You also might want to try to find an audio recording forum with people who have experience with high quality recording and what hardware works best for the money.
 
from what I read a decade ago, 96 or 192KHz frequency is for running your calculations, mixes and effects, losing useless (indaubile) information in the process rather than mangling audible high frequencies.

a bit like using FP64 for computing, you probably don't need such precision in the data but your error propagation will be lesser.

entity279 said:
Nothing is able to record reality as you would need infinite precision :p. Practically, 24 bit allows for an increased sensitivity (there is a higher range of "volumes" being recorded). So there is more space between the lowest amplitude sound and the highest amplitude sound. While I have no personal experience (no capable sound equipment yet), this time (and unlike 48KHz+ and the likes), the difference appears to be audible. If you record 24bit and save the final track on a Cd (16bit) then the only thing you achieve is that rounding errors (if any) are indeed eliminated.

@Grall. The more dynamic an instrument is, the more bitrate it should need.
Click to expand...

yep. and for the final result you don't need the range, you will rarely listen to music or a movie that scale from a very faint whisper to totally huge cannon fire and thunderstorms. (need to build a big special room and refrain from breathing? :oops: )

the sound engineer does his engineering thing, he controls (and he has to) the dynamic range of the final result.
16bit is said to provide 96dB. 96dB is a number that means "bigger by a factor of 2^32" (why not 16bit gives 2^16, I don't know! it's squared for some reason)

conversion from 24bit to 16bit is even done with dithering (the very same thing you can use in paint shop pro for turning an image into a 256 or 16 color one, and still be able to look at it)

another analogy : you do your rendering with FP16 textures and FP16 buffers for the HDR, but convert the result into a 32bit framebuffer for output to the monitor :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blazkowicz said:
from what I read a decade ago, 96 or 192KHz frequency is for running your calculations, mixes and effects, losing useless (indaubile) information in the process rather than mangling audible high frequencies.

a bit like using FP64 for computing, you probably don't need such precision in the data but your error propagation will be lesser.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess so.
 
theres a lot of bollux info in this thread.
eg looking just at the numbers doesnt tell you much

its perfectly possible to have something that is
16bit/96KHz
sounding better than
20,000bit/20 bazillion hz

I suggest looking at a site where ppl know about the subject, heres one
http://www.soundonsound.com/

edit - you'll also need a decent mic, which will be at least $150-200
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Retro VGS coming: 100% offline retro ARM based console in Atari Jaguar shell
Replies
5
Views
2K
Rangers
R
T
Audio help
Replies
7
Views
4K
Silent_Buddha
S
digitalwanderer
What would you build if you had $1,100 and had to get it all at Newegg today?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Rainbow Man
R
T
server/htpc, this any good?
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Tahir2
T
F
PlayStation 3: Audio & Video Discussion
Replies
14
Views
5K
FutureCTO
F
Back
Top