🚀 go-pugleaf

SoUnD-CaRd GuRu "Arny Krueger" wrote:

>> >My viewpoint on the sound quality doesn't come from Arny's site: I
>> >ditched my Live! after one month because of:
>
>> >- Harsh, tinny highs
>> >- Lackluster sound depth
>> >- Anemic bass
>> >- Lack of virtual placement (the damned thing sounded FLAT)
>
>> I plugged the Live! into my Gina input and compared the two playing
>> back wave files ripped from CD.  I just can't agree.. there was a
>> difference, but nothing like as gross as you suggest here.
>
>I think that somewhat depends on the acuity of your hearing.

< Plug for Arny's website deleted >

Excuse me Arny, but does it fuck have anything to do with that.  Your
link to your blind listening tests is nothing but spam, it's
irrelevant to my questioning of Roj's subjective comments.  If he had
just said 'same' or 'different' then maybe it would apply, but he
didn't.  Roj gave his subjective opinion and stated it "doesn't come
from Arny's site", leave the guy alone.

Having said that.. since you've interjected in such a disgusting and
filthy manner I decided to download a 30 day trial of Spectralab and
see for myself just how your your tests contrasts with my 'real-world'
Live! hardware.  An actual practical example of using your data as
reference.  Predictably, I get better results.

You have been spitting blood and teeth about the frequency response of
the Live! making all sorts of outrageous pronouncements, driving
customers away, yet.. straight out of the box I turn out a palatable
+0.3/-0.5 dB from 20Hz to 19Khz.  

http://home.clara.net/media/scans/fr.jpg
[Analog 48Khz, 16bt, 32768pts, Flattop]

Same story with the 1Khz S/NR test, I get 88dB compared to your 82dB.
That's half as much noise.  With the digital outputs I get a whopping
92dB S/NR compared to your 80dB, and an even flatter signal response
than with analog.

So I'm wondering how you arrived at such a pile of shit results?
Maybe you didn't mute unused channels on the mixer applet first?
Perhaps you inadvertently wired some resistors inline with your
cabling?  Maybe you defecated on your sample first?  I dunno.. but
essentially the card I have in front of me sounds a LOT'S better than
your www.pcavtech.com site suggests.

[Disclaimer : Of course the Live! isn't perfect.  We wish it wasn't
locked at 48Khz.. we wish the conversion algorithm was better.. we
wish it had higher quality convertors.. it's �40 for fucks sake!]

>IME my Santa Cruz just sounds GOOD. I replaced a PCI 128 with a Santa
>Cruz and it was like a breath of fresh air.

Psychological?

>I far prefer listening to
>music on my machine with the Santa Cruz as opposed to my machine with
>the Live!

Psychological?

>I'm thinking of buying another one to replace the sole
>remaining Live! in my house systems.

Psychological?

>I could easily pick up an AP
>2496, but I don't think I'd get twice the price worth of audible
>benefit out of it. I do have an AP 2496 to compare with...

Psychological?

>It was really pretty good in its day. But that was 3 years ago,
>right?

Psychological?

>> >The card likes to hog the PCI bus.  it's a long standing failing.
>
>> When you say "the card" do you include the driver?
>
>It's kind of hard to use a card without its drivers!

Nice one.  Now tell us whether the PCI hogging is

1) a myth
2) caused by poor hardware design
3) caused by poorly written drivers
4) other

>> >>>Rip-off packaging
>
>> >>OTT promotion certainly.
>
>> >No - all the Live! cards are the same.  All you're paying for is a
>> >cute software bundle.
>
>> So where's the rip-off?
>
>The apparent claim that there is a significant difference between
>what is in the boxes that you put in your computer.

Example?

>> >>>What else is there to say?
>
>> >>I'm not convinced.  OK my system has crashed a couple of times since
>> >>installing a Live card.. but I did fudge the installation. Besides
>> >>I've experienced much worse from professional products - not ready to
>> >>condemn it based on my own experience.  I am pretty impressed with
>> >>what the Live! engine is capable of.  Aren't you?
>> >
>> >Not really - I own a Santa Cruz.  **THAT** DSP impresses me :-)
>
>> What makes it far superior in your mind?
>
>Better

Really?  The EMU10K has more than twice the number crunching power of
the Soundfusion DSP in the Cruz.  The EMU10K performs *one billion*
instructions per second, all dedicated to audio.  I'm looking at a
card with 64 voice polyphony, 48 MIDI channels, soundfont
compatibility, 131 hardware audio channels, 92dB S/N ratio (88 for
analog), four independant effects busses (assignable to hardware
outputs), strip inputs, reverb, chorus, flanger, delay, auto wah,
pitch shifter, distortion, compression, four independant shelf EQ and
four independant Parametric EQ.. all of which can be used
*simultaneously*.  Your answer of "better" goes no way toward
convincing me that the Cruz DSP is, indeed, "better".  Could you be a
tad more specific?

>cheaper.

It is more expensive you moron.

>Sold in a straight-forward way.

OK, I will agree with that.


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t