🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:05:38 +0100, please.reply@in.group wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Maybe I am missing something, but do the SB Live and Audigy 1 & 2 all
>only have 128 GM/GS sounds?! I mean, that's basically only standard
>general midi sounds. Isn't the Emu chip on it not capable of creating
>much more sounds to play with. I want to use this card to compose midi
>music, but having only 128 standard sounds is rather limiting, unless
>there is more?!..
>
>PS: do SBLive, Audigy 1 & 2 all have the same synth on the card?
>
>Anybody could please clarify this? Thanks!
>
>Mike.

You might want to review this "blurb" on their web sight relating to
Sound Fonts. I haven't done any midi stuff yet, but I think this is
their way of greatly expanding on the standard set.

http://www.soundblaster.com/resources/read.asp?articleid=63&cat=2 

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 07:51:59 GMT, moog <no.spam@my.address> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 03:05:38 +0100, please.reply@in.group wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>Maybe I am missing something, but do the SB Live and Audigy 1 & 2 all
>>only have 128 GM/GS sounds?! I mean, that's basically only standard
>>general midi sounds. Isn't the Emu chip on it not capable of creating
>>much more sounds to play with. I want to use this card to compose midi
>>music, but having only 128 standard sounds is rather limiting, unless
>>there is more?!..


Synth A & B are Soundfont synths, the EMU chip is a powerful sample
playback device. 


You need to do some research on what the card can do.
Get to work.

Ap

>Maybe I am missing something, but do the SB Live and Audigy 1 & 2 all
>only have 128 GM/GS sounds?! I mean, that's basically only standard
>general midi sounds. Isn't the Emu chip on it not capable of creating
>much more sounds to play with. I want to use this card to compose midi
>music, but having only 128 standard sounds is rather limiting, unless
>there is more?!..
>
>PS: do SBLive, Audigy 1 & 2 all have the same synth on the card?


It's only the consumer/gamer cards that have ANY onboard sounds.
Better quality cards concentrate on doing one job - audio in and out.

As I said before, the FEATURES of the Audigy are great!  Onboard
SoundFont support (a type of sample player) is useful, and there are
plenty of free SoundFont banks available.  If it wasn't for the huge
problem of bad synch at 44.1KHz......

Note that with today's powerful computers, it's easy to emulate a
SoundFont player and other synthesiser devices in software.
My CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm

please.reply@in.group wrote in message news:<3E825C72.108F85D4@in.group>...
> Hi,
> 
> Maybe I am missing something, but do the SB Live and Audigy 1 & 2 all
> only have 128 GM/GS sounds?! 

The 128 instruments that are in a standard bank just happen to be the
standard that was decided on when MIDI was being developed. You don't
have to use any of the instruments or instrument patch numbers that
are in a standard MIDI bank. You can make up your own with no problem.
I would say that's what many people who are serious about making high
grade midi do anyway. I don't imagine most people have much use for
gunshots, helicopter noises etc. in their compositions.

However, if you play a midi file that was created with a standard bank
in mind, obviously you'll have to reassign the patch numbers or the
wrong instruments will play.

Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<76i58vo3upmqpggjcqaaofklv5ta2cd8o4@4ax.com>...

> >PS: do SBLive, Audigy 1 & 2 all have the same synth on the card?
> 
> It's only the consumer/gamer cards that have ANY onboard sounds.
> Better quality cards concentrate on doing one job - audio in and out.

Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
you think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the cost
you can have high quality midi/digital audio from one source. For
anyone who doesn't need multi-in/out, that Audigy or even a Live card
will do a spectacular job.

> > >PS: do SBLive, Audigy 1 & 2 all have the same synth on the card?
> >
> > It's only the consumer/gamer cards that have ANY onboard sounds.
> > Better quality cards concentrate on doing one job - audio in and out.
>
> Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
> you think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the cost
> you can have high quality midi/digital audio from one source. For
> anyone who doesn't need multi-in/out, that Audigy or even a Live card
> will do a spectacular job.

You get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that people pay $800 or more
for a card such as a RME Hamerfall just for the boasting rights? Your
statement above speaks more about how you feel the need to  justify the use
of a SB card. Some people can hear and appreciate high quality hardware and
the sound it produces.

Even for the same price as a SB you can get audio cards like the Audiophile
2496 that outperform the SB.
Have you even tried other cards besides the SB? Don't mistake your own
ignorance for reality.

>> >PS: do SBLive, Audigy 1 & 2 all have the same synth on the card?
>> 
>> It's only the consumer/gamer cards that have ANY onboard sounds.
>> Better quality cards concentrate on doing one job - audio in and out.
>
>Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
>you think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the cost
>you can have high quality midi/digital audio from one source. For
>anyone who doesn't need multi-in/out, that Audigy or even a Live card
>will do a spectacular job.

I agree, the features of these top-end consumer cards are impressive.
If it wasn't for the problems keeping multi-track audio in synch other
than at 48KHz sample rate, there wouldn't be half the market for
semi-pro  cards.

I imagine the problem arises BECAUSE of the features.  If you're going
to build in a midi synth and sample playback engine, you need a fixed
internal sample rate.  Unfortunately Creative went for 48KHz, while
the rest of the hobbyist and semi-pro audio world decided to input and
output at 44.1KHz.

Note that I'm talking about problems with keeping multiple audio
streams going within an application, not with any issue concerning
multiple physical audio ports.
My CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm

On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 21:14:40 +0100, Laurence Payne
<l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>>> >PS: do SBLive, Audigy 1 & 2 all have the same synth on the card?
>>> 
>>> It's only the consumer/gamer cards that have ANY onboard sounds.
>>> Better quality cards concentrate on doing one job - audio in and out.
>>
>>Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
>>you think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the cost
>>you can have high quality midi/digital audio from one source. For
>>anyone who doesn't need multi-in/out, that Audigy or even a Live card
>>will do a spectacular job.
>
>I agree, the features of these top-end consumer cards are impressive.
>If it wasn't for the problems keeping multi-track audio in synch other
>than at 48KHz sample rate, there wouldn't be half the market for
>semi-pro  cards.
>
>I imagine the problem arises BECAUSE of the features.  If you're going
>to build in a midi synth and sample playback engine, you need a fixed
>internal sample rate.  Unfortunately Creative went for 48KHz, while
>the rest of the hobbyist and semi-pro audio world decided to input and
>output at 44.1KHz.

 I think the 48khz is part of the AC97 codec standard, required for
Creative to be listed as an approved Windows MME device and thus
included in PCs built by almost every manufacturer. I suspect the
48khz is also an attempt by the recording industry to "build in" in a
non-compatible direct/digital duplication process. You can record
digitally at 44.1 into an SBLive/Audigy but it is actually goes
through a conversion process to get there, not a direct digital copy.

And yes, there are the sync issues and the fact that ASIO is -only- at
48khz creating problems with many VSTinstruments.


Ap

To answer the original question:

The SBLIve/Audigy are Soundfont capable....
There's thousands of Megs available on the internet.
Orchestral Soundfints, Keyboard Soundfonts, Bass
Soundfonts...etc...etc.

The 128 sounds are only the basic GM soundfont.

Ap

"mehere" <mehere@home.org> wrote in message news:<tb0ja.25353$vs.1404596@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...

> >
> > Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
> > you think anyway. 

> 
> You get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that people pay $800 or more
> for a card such as a RME Hamerfall just for the boasting rights? Your
> statement above speaks more about how you feel the need to  justify the use
> of a SB card. 

What I think is that a lot of people badmouth SB cards when they've
never really explored them. In a series of blind comparisons, I'd be
very curious if you could consistently pick the Audigy out from the
mega buck cards. And yes, people overpay for things all the time
because of the artificial sense of prestige it gives them.

Certainly there are reasons why people use various other cards for
doing production - the SB cards don't have multi in/out, but it
doesn't alter the fact that for doing 1 or 2 tracks at a time, the
Audigy does a superb job, and as far as sound quality, it will compare
favorably to any midi system, for a fraction of the cost.

Even a few years ago, what would you have had to pay for gear with
these specs?

-Midi patch size limited ONLY by you system RAM. You got 3 gigs of
RAM? You can use anything that isn't being used by the system for
midi. That 64-meg pro module you paid an arm and a left nut for
suddenly seems kinda lame compared to this "gamer" card, huh?
-64 voice midi polyphony
-102 db signal to noise ratio
-24-bit Digital-to-Analog conversion during playback with sampling
rates of 8, 11.025, 16, 22.05, 24, 32, 44.1, 48 and 96kHz in 5.1 mode
and up to 192kHz in stereo mode
-24-bit Analog to Digital conversion during recording in 8, 16 or
24-bit at sampling rates of 8, 11.025, 16, 22.05, 24, 32, 44.1, 48 and
96kHz
-SPDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface) input at up to 24-bit/ 96kHz
quality
-SPDIF output up to 24-bit at 48 or 96kHz 

All in ONE card. Will you produce the soundtrack for the next
Spielberg movie on it? Probably not, but for Joe HomeStudio, this kind
of capability for the price represents nothing short of a miracle.

Of course we won't talk about Creative's lame tech support, but hey,
whaddya want, everything?

>> You get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that people pay $800 or more
>> for a card such as a RME Hamerfall just for the boasting rights? Your
>> statement above speaks more about how you feel the need to  justify the use
>> of a SB card. 
>
>What I think is that a lot of people badmouth SB cards when they've
>never really explored them. In a series of blind comparisons, I'd be
>very curious if you could consistently pick the Audigy out from the
>mega buck cards. And yes, people overpay for things all the time
>because of the artificial sense of prestige it gives them.
>
>Certainly there are reasons why people use various other cards for
>doing production - the SB cards don't have multi in/out, but it
>doesn't alter the fact that for doing 1 or 2 tracks at a time, the
>Audigy does a superb job, and as far as sound quality, it will compare
>favorably to any midi system, for a fraction of the cost.

You continue to avoid the one real issue :-0
My CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm

hear hear - and the windows 2000 drivers - for my live platinum have reduced
latency to next to nothing.
Marveloous
"Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0c1bc20.0304031018.5c8a3adf@posting.google.com...
> Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<76i58vo3upmqpggjcqaaofklv5ta2cd8o4@4ax.com>...
>
> > >PS: do SBLive, Audigy 1 & 2 all have the same synth on the card?
> >
> > It's only the consumer/gamer cards that have ANY onboard sounds.
> > Better quality cards concentrate on doing one job - audio in and out.
>
> Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
> you think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the cost
> you can have high quality midi/digital audio from one source. For
> anyone who doesn't need multi-in/out, that Audigy or even a Live card
> will do a spectacular job.

"Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0c1bc20.0304031910.76cf5666@posting.google.com...
> "mehere" <mehere@home.org> wrote in message
news:<tb0ja.25353$vs.1404596@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > You get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that people pay $800 or
more
> > for a card such as a RME Hamerfall just for the boasting rights? Your
> > statement above speaks more about how you feel the need to  justify the
use
> > of a SB card.
>
> What I think is that a lot of people badmouth SB cards when they've never
really explored them. In a series of blind comparisons, I'd be very curious
if you could consistently pick the Audigy out from the mega buck cards. And
yes, people overpay for things all the time because of the artificial sense
of prestige it gives them.

What!!??
You make some valid points but that "artificial sense of prestige" is
utterly ridiculous.
I spent money on a sound card on recommendation from a trusted source,spent
more again on better A/D conversion in another sound card,which replaced the
first-I did it for the prestige?,FFS you can't go round posing in the
things,ie they ain't Porsche.

 Of course we won't talk about Creative's lame tech support, but hey,
whaddya want, everything?

You get what you pay for,right?
So if tech/driver updates is low on your list,you'll know where to look.
Personally with the myriad possible hiccups tech support SHOULD be a
consideration,likewise warranty and so on.
When you see software writers writing individual(tweaked) drivers for a
single customer or getting into personal email dialogue over an issue that
affects 1%(or less) of customer base you'll understand what tech support
means.

Other than this,if you're happy,and it works,good luck to you,even at
48khz!!

ATB-DG.

> What!!??
> You make some valid points but that "artificial sense of prestige" is
> utterly ridiculous.

That quoted statement says more about the poster's sense of insecurity.

> I spent money on a sound card on recommendation from a trusted
source,spent
> more again on better A/D conversion in another sound card,which replaced
the
> first-I did it for the prestige?,FFS you can't go round posing in the
> things,ie they ain't Porsche.

What, you don't walk down the street waving your RME card? :-)
Shame!

> Other than this,if you're happy,and it works,good luck to you,even at
> 48khz!!

Use the tool that does the job, as they say. This stuff is computer
equipment, not a religion.

Laurence Payne <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<qniq8vg8d6gmfdn2icf5bhpiqofhlhkv2p@4ax.com>...
> 
> You continue to avoid the one real issue :-0
> My CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm

I looked, don't see what you're referring to. Saw no references to SB,
Audigy, etc. Only saw some items about Cubase. You'll have to tell me
what I should be looking for.

>> You continue to avoid the one real issue :-0
>> My CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
>
>I looked, don't see what you're referring to. Saw no references to SB,
>Audigy, etc. Only saw some items about Cubase. You'll have to tell me
>what I should be looking for.

Oh, right.
That's just my standard sig. for music-related newsgroups.  Not
intended as a specific reference in that message,

The issue is unreliable operation other than at 48KHz sample rate, as
mentioned incessantly in this thread.

Here comes the sig again :-)


My CubaseFAQ page www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm

Not to offend anyone in this thread, since I have an SBLive (bought
for soundfonts) I can at least comment from the standpoint of actually
using the card.

The AD/DA converters on these cards are not close to same quality as
even the $149 (usd) Audiophile 2496. The sound is somewhat colored,
bass heavy with a little upper midrange honk. Not bad, but not
accurate either. Don't know about the latest Audigy card, supposedly
the converters are a better grade, haven't heard one to comment.

Don't even try and compare audio recording/playback with an RME card.

Someone mentioned they can be bought on cheap on EBay...
Why do you think that is?

Still, I think the SBLive series are good little cards, very
versatile, just don't try and compare them with a quality pro audio
card, there IS a difference.

I purchased the Proteus soundfont modules and collected a couple of
CDs worth of decent sounds. The card is retired now as the soundfonts
can be loaded by VSTi.

Ap

"Dave G" <SpamS@ndwich.com> wrote in message news:<b6jp2g$a04$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> "Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0c1bc20.0304031910.76cf5666@posting.google.com...

> > What I think is that a lot of people badmouth SB cards when they've never
> really explored them. In a series of blind comparisons, I'd be very curious
> if you could consistently pick the Audigy out from the mega buck cards. And
> yes, people overpay for things all the time because of the artificial sense
> of prestige it gives them.
> 
> What!!??

Feeling excitable today? 

> You make some valid points but that "artificial sense of prestige" is
> utterly ridiculous.

If you say so.

> I spent money on a sound card on recommendation from a trusted source,spent
> more again on better A/D conversion in another sound card,which replaced the
> first-I did it for the prestige?

I didn't it's always the case, but sometimes it is. I've seen charts
and graphs showing this marginal difference and that between this card
and that, measured with electronic instruments, but again I'd be very
curious to see the results of a blind comparison between the Audigy
and more pricey pro cards. It would be interesting to see the results,
either way, whether the Audigy was shown to be severely lacking or
stood toe to toe with the other cards.

> FFS you can't go round posing in the
> things,ie they ain't Porsche.

You can buy into marketing hype... never encountered a "pro" sound
card or other piece of gear that didn't live up to your expectations?
Ever heard of "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

> Of course we won't talk about Creative's lame tech support, but hey,
> whaddya want, everything?
> 
> You get what you pay for,right?

The price is low, the performance is amazing, especially considering
the price. They apparently had to cut corners somewhere. That's where
resources such as Usenet become valuable. I will say that from what
I've read, it turns out that many of the early problems reported with
the Audigy apparently weren't the fault of the card at all, but with a
defect in certain motherboards.


> Other than this,if you're happy,and it works,good luck to you,even at
> 48khz!!

So far, no complaints!

Come on,
If you are into making music the SBlive is absolutely fine for mosy users. I
all depends on whether you are into making good music, or are focussed on
running 1000 instruments with 100 effects at 24bit.
The default bit rate for the format that most people buy music on is 16
bit - ie cd quality.
Sorry to piss on your chips, but the vast majority of people who listen to
your music will not be worried about 24bit and all that.
Its all about the songs, not the da convereters.
You can produce awesome demo tracks with a sb live + vst. I cant understand
why people want more and more when cd's play at 16bit!
Concentrate on your music composition, not the performance on your audio
card.
The sblive paltinum is absolutely capable of most applications for very good
quality recordings. The myth being that owning a �800 soundcard aint gonna
turn you into the chemical bros, know what i mean?
"Aphelion" <toofar@fromthesun.com> wrote in message
news:3e8dd729.3430522@news-west.giganews.com...
>
>
> Not to offend anyone in this thread, since I have an SBLive (bought
> for soundfonts) I can at least comment from the standpoint of actually
> using the card.
>
> The AD/DA converters on these cards are not close to same quality as
> even the $149 (usd) Audiophile 2496. The sound is somewhat colored,
> bass heavy with a little upper midrange honk. Not bad, but not
> accurate either. Don't know about the latest Audigy card, supposedly
> the converters are a better grade, haven't heard one to comment.
>
> Don't even try and compare audio recording/playback with an RME card.
>
> Someone mentioned they can be bought on cheap on EBay...
> Why do you think that is?
>
> Still, I think the SBLive series are good little cards, very
> versatile, just don't try and compare them with a quality pro audio
> card, there IS a difference.
>
> I purchased the Proteus soundfont modules and collected a couple of
> CDs worth of decent sounds. The card is retired now as the soundfonts
> can be loaded by VSTi.
>
> Ap

hear hear
"Dave G" <SpamS@ndwich.com> wrote in message
news:b6jp2g$a04$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f0c1bc20.0304031910.76cf5666@posting.google.com...
> > "mehere" <mehere@home.org> wrote in message
> news:<tb0ja.25353$vs.1404596@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > > You get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that people pay $800 or
> more
> > > for a card such as a RME Hamerfall just for the boasting rights? Your
> > > statement above speaks more about how you feel the need to  justify
the
> use
> > > of a SB card.
> >
> > What I think is that a lot of people badmouth SB cards when they've
never
> really explored them. In a series of blind comparisons, I'd be very
curious
> if you could consistently pick the Audigy out from the mega buck cards.
And
> yes, people overpay for things all the time because of the artificial
sense
> of prestige it gives them.
>
> What!!??
> You make some valid points but that "artificial sense of prestige" is
> utterly ridiculous.
> I spent money on a sound card on recommendation from a trusted
source,spent
> more again on better A/D conversion in another sound card,which replaced
the
> first-I did it for the prestige?,FFS you can't go round posing in the
> things,ie they ain't Porsche.
>
>  Of course we won't talk about Creative's lame tech support, but hey,
> whaddya want, everything?
>
> You get what you pay for,right?
> So if tech/driver updates is low on your list,you'll know where to look.
> Personally with the myriad possible hiccups tech support SHOULD be a
> consideration,likewise warranty and so on.
> When you see software writers writing individual(tweaked) drivers for a
> single customer or getting into personal email dialogue over an issue that
> affects 1%(or less) of customer base you'll understand what tech support
> means.
>
> Other than this,if you're happy,and it works,good luck to you,even at
> 48khz!!
>
> ATB-DG.
>
>
>

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 19:20:19 +0100, "jimmy"
<jim.plunkett@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Come on,
>If you are into making music the SBlive is absolutely fine for mosy users. I
>all depends on whether you are into making good music, or are focussed on
>running 1000 instruments with 100 effects at 24bit.
>The default bit rate for the format that most people buy music on is 16
>bit - ie cd quality.
>Sorry to piss on your chips, but the vast majority of people who listen to
>your music will not be worried about 24bit and all that.
>Its all about the songs, not the da convereters.
>You can produce awesome demo tracks with a sb live + vst. I cant understand
>why people want more and more when cd's play at 16bit!
>Concentrate on your music composition, not the performance on your audio
>card.
>The sblive paltinum is absolutely capable of most applications for very good
>quality recordings. The myth being that owning a �800 soundcard aint gonna
>turn you into the chemical bros, know what i mean?



No one is saying or has said that the music isn't the most important
thing or that buying a PRO audio card is going to make you better
musician.... you're clouding the issue on purpose.

I said the SBLive is fine..... for what it is!   No more, no less.
However, if we're talking about audio quality.... it doesn't measure
up to the more expensive cards... don't kid yourself into thinking it
does. Just because you can't hear the difference doesn't mean others
can't.

Ap


>"Aphelion" <toofar@fromthesun.com> wrote in message
>news:3e8dd729.3430522@news-west.giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> Not to offend anyone in this thread, since I have an SBLive (bought
>> for soundfonts) I can at least comment from the standpoint of actually
>> using the card.
>>
>> The AD/DA converters on these cards are not close to same quality as
>> even the $149 (usd) Audiophile 2496. The sound is somewhat colored,
>> bass heavy with a little upper midrange honk. Not bad, but not
>> accurate either. Don't know about the latest Audigy card, supposedly
>> the converters are a better grade, haven't heard one to comment.
>>
>> Don't even try and compare audio recording/playback with an RME card.
>>
>> Someone mentioned they can be bought on cheap on EBay...
>> Why do you think that is?
>>
>> Still, I think the SBLive series are good little cards, very
>> versatile, just don't try and compare them with a quality pro audio
>> card, there IS a difference.
>>
>> I purchased the Proteus soundfont modules and collected a couple of
>> CDs worth of decent sounds. The card is retired now as the soundfonts
>> can be loaded by VSTi.
>>
>> Ap
>
>

toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message news:<3e8dd729.3430522@news-west.giganews.com>...

> Not to offend anyone in this thread, since I have an SBLive (bought
> for soundfonts) I can at least comment from the standpoint of actually
> using the card.
> 
> The AD/DA converters on these cards are not close to same quality as
> even the $149 (usd) Audiophile 2496. The sound is somewhat colored,
> bass heavy with a little upper midrange honk. Not bad, but not
> accurate either. Don't know about the latest Audigy card, supposedly
> the converters are a better grade, haven't heard one to comment.

Having the almost limitless SF size capability makes a huge difference
in the quality of sounds for one thing. Don't have to resort to micro
looping to stay under the 32 meg ceiling as with the Live.

While I'm not prepared to pony up the dough to test it, but I wonder
how many who say things like this would be willing to bet say $1000
that 95% of the time they could identify the Audigy in a series of
say, 100 trials. Each time, listen to the same recording made on say 5
or 6 different pro cards, and consistently be able to say which is the
Audigy. If I ever win the lottery I would definitely make this
challenge and publish the results. Would be interesting to see how
many would have the confidence to put their money where their sound
card is. Also would be interesting to see how many would end up eating
their words.

 
> Someone mentioned they can be bought on cheap on EBay...
> Why do you think that is?

I can offer a hypothesis. They had trouble installing them or had
chronic problems after install, very likely due to Via chipset issues
that have nothing to do with the card, but nobody knew to tell them
this. They got frustrated and tossed the card and got what they could
for it.

> Still, I think the SBLive series are good little cards, very
> versatile, just don't try and compare them with a quality pro audio
> card, there IS a difference.

Would YOU be one of the ones willing to put a grand on the line over
the Audigy? (Of course, it's easy to say yes when it's not a reality)

On 5 Apr 2003 13:52:30 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:


My original beef with your post only had to do with your misconception
that somehow those who purchase "pro" cards are somehow getting
screwed because we believe some hype about audio quality and could do
just as well with a commercial card from Creative and not be able to
hear the difference.

I'm just saying you're either misinformed or don't know/can't hear the
difference youself.

The overall construction, noise rejection, quality of parts..etc..etc
between a Creative card and an RME (M-Audio, MOTU) card are worlds
apart.
 
>> Someone mentioned they can be bought on cheap on EBay...
>> Why do you think that is?
>
>I can offer a hypothesis. They had trouble installing them or had
>chronic problems after install, very likely due to Via chipset issues
>that have nothing to do with the card, but nobody knew to tell them
>this. They got frustrated and tossed the card and got what they could
>for it.

Or they actually wanted a true digital copy coming in from DAT or some
other digital source. The Live and Audigy resample all incoming
digital audio. The internal clock is locked to 48khz.
Don't take my word for it, run a few searches on Google.

Also, a good percentage of the complaints on this board are from those
using SBLive/Audigy.

>> Still, I think the SBLive series are good little cards, very
>> versatile, just don't try and compare them with a quality pro audio
>> card, there IS a difference.
>
>Would YOU be one of the ones willing to put a grand on the line over
>the Audigy? (Of course, it's easy to say yes when it's not a reality)

Well, it's a no brainer at least with the SBLive....

It's easy to tell the difference on my moderate system with Event
20/20Bas monitors and a Mackie mixer.

Why don't you borrow one of the better cards at under $500, install it
and see if you can hear the difference.

You would need to record the same source at the same rate and play
back each file on it's respective card, you will hear a difference.
Now whether that difference is worth it to you or not..... I can't
say. I make my living in music, to me it is definitely worth it.

I have to say, even my ancient TurtleBeach Fiji ISA card sounds better
than the SBLive, as for the RME I'm currently using... there's really
no comparison. 

btw, I'm not talking about soundfonts (although they go through the DA
converters as well.)

Just pure audio recording/playback.

Again, that said... I still have the SBLive and if I could squeeze it
in my current XP/RME system, I probably would as the soundfont support
comes in handy.


Ap

>On 5 Apr 2003 13:52:30 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:

Also Doc, I speak from experience of using several different audio
cards...  how many have you used for comparison?

Ap

And Last:

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, the SBLIve and Audigy
offer great value, do sound fine and are perfectly up the the task of
creating excellent music. Just don't tell me a pro audio card is not
worth the money because it's more hype than substance. Purchasing an
RME card was the best single investment I've made to my recording
system. From the hardware, to the excellent drivers to support... it's
all top notch. And of course the accurate sound.

When I had a problem in XP, they had me send my card to New York,
upgraded a chip and had it back to me in less than a week, no charge.

It's worth it, period!

Ap

"Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0c1bc20.0304051352.5f350796@posting.google.com...
> toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message
news:<3e8dd729.3430522@news-west.giganews.com>...
>> Would YOU be one of the ones willing to put a grand on the line over the
Audigy? (Of course, it's easy to say yes when it's not a reality)

Haha-I did!

Why?because I could hear the difference the "better" soundcard made to the
sound I could capture of my Sax playing.
That's right I COULD hear the difference.
Between the accuracy of a �300 card and a �800 card so God knows what the
difference between SB/Audigy and the RME would be.
Recordings made with same mic,mixer,room etc,the card was the only
difference.
The accuracy of the captured Sax sound being very important(not to mention
the other associated benefits)was reason enough to upgrade for me.
I still say however,with a nod of respect,if it works for you and you're
happy-great,get on with it,make music.
I kind of resent being made out a money waster,elitist,kudos hungry idiot
just 'cos I made a music based decision for my own needs though.

ATB-DG.

"jimmy" <jim.plunkett@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<W8Fja.373$1v2.330@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> Come on,
> If you are into making music the SBlive is absolutely fine for mosy users. I
> all depends on whether you are into making good music, or are focussed on
> running 1000 instruments with 100 effects at 24bit.

Could someone tell me what would be the best card for running "1000
instruments with 100 effects"? Is Audigy 2 Platinum a good choice?
Thanks.

S.P.

toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message news:<3e8f50de.19209421@news-west.giganews.com>...
> On 5 Apr 2003 13:52:30 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:
> 
> 
> My original beef with your post only had to do with your misconception
> that somehow those who purchase "pro" cards are somehow getting
> screwed because we believe some hype about audio quality and could do
> just as well with a commercial card from Creative and not be able to
> hear the difference.

Never said that, I was saying that a lot of people likely don't
realize the results they can get with a SB. A lot of people snobbishly
poo-poo them and I think it's unwarranted. Will they do everything?
No, but again, they provide functionality that would have been unheard
of at ANY price not long ago. And I imagine there are some people who
drop big bucks on much pricier gear that they don't need, when the SB
would have suited their needs fine. You could cut a fine sounding
album with modest outboard gear, a Live or Audigy, a $200 computer and
of course skill and finesse.

> >
> >Would YOU be one of the ones willing to put a grand on the line over
> >the Audigy? (Of course, it's easy to say yes when it's not a reality)
> 
> Well, it's a no brainer at least with the SBLive....

Didn't say the Live, said Audigy. Sounds like you're hedging...

> It's easy to tell the difference on my moderate system with Event
> 20/20Bas monitors and a Mackie mixer.

Easy enough where you'd bet a grand on it? Easy to id when you're
doing the engineering and you know what was recorded with what. Bet it
would be a lot tougher if you had to depend solely on your ear with no
other point of reference on a system you're not used to.

"Dave G" <SpamS@ndwich.com> wrote in message news:<b6nnt5$4v8$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...

> >> Would YOU be one of the ones willing to put a grand on the line over the
> Audigy? (Of course, it's easy to say yes when it's not a reality)
> 
> Haha-I did!
> 
> Why?because I could hear the difference the "better" soundcard made to the
> sound I could capture of my Sax playing.
> That's right I COULD hear the difference.

When you KNEW which recording was made with which card. I said a blind
test. In my hypothetical test, you hear 100 recordings you didn't
make, of the same material made on 6 different cards. Pick out the
Audigy at least 95 out of 100 times. If you're wrong, it costs you a
grand.

On 5 Apr 2003 19:45:13 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:

>toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message news:<3e8f50de.19209421@news-west.giganews.com>...
>> On 5 Apr 2003 13:52:30 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> My original beef with your post only had to do with your misconception
>> that somehow those who purchase "pro" cards are somehow getting
>> screwed because we believe some hype about audio quality and could do
>> just as well with a commercial card from Creative and not be able to
>> hear the difference.
>
>Never said that, I was saying that a lot of people likely don't
>realize the results they can get with a SB. A lot of people snobbishly
>poo-poo them and I think it's unwarranted. Will they do everything?
>No, but again, they provide functionality that would have been unheard
>of at ANY price not long ago. And I imagine there are some people who
>drop big bucks on much pricier gear that they don't need, when the SB
>would have suited their needs fine. You could cut a fine sounding
>album with modest outboard gear, a Live or Audigy, a $200 computer and
>of course skill and finesse.

Hey, you can make great recordings on a $200 cassette 4-track.

But do the more expensive cards sound better than an SBLive..... yes
by quite a bit. Ask anyone on this board who's made the switch.

I repeat, there's several in this newsgroup who've switched to better
cards... ask them if there's a difference.

They're poo-pooed because of all the hype Creative puts behind the
card then skimps on the technology. If you're happy with the card,
wonderful... you own the best consumer game card out there...go for
it. Just don't try to make a direct digital transfer from or to DAT or
any other digital source.. .because what goes in, is not what comes
out.  

Also, don't try to record MIDI audio at 44.1khz in a multitrack
program, you will end up with sync problems, and don't complain when
VSTi instruments running at 48khz don't behave well or play out of
tune.

The card is an inexpensive consumer card with a lot of cool features,
but it's not something that anyone would use when something like the
award winning Audiophile is available. 

The M-Audio Audiophile 2496 sells for $149 comes with low latency
ASIO drivers, audio quality is excellent.

End of discussion, can't believe I'm debating the merits/demerits of
Creative SBlasters and their ilk..  :-)

Ap

lol :)

Maybe this could start a competition: Write a VSTi plugin that uses so few
resources that you can run 1000 instances of it on an average PC with an
Audigy 2 card

"s.p." <s_paliwoda@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:5121b126.0304051802.472bd753@posting.google.com...
> "jimmy" <jim.plunkett@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<W8Fja.373$1v2.330@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > Come on,
> > If you are into making music the SBlive is absolutely fine for mosy
users. I
> > all depends on whether you are into making good music, or are focussed
on
> > running 1000 instruments with 100 effects at 24bit.
>
> Could someone tell me what would be the best card for running "1000
> instruments with 100 effects"? Is Audigy 2 Platinum a good choice?
> Thanks.
>
> S.P.

   I think a lot of people on here who are poo-pooing the Creative cards are
speaking from experience.  I still have an SBLive! in my machine, I am in no
way an expert on sound quality, but I can definitely hear the difference
between tracks recorded through the SBLive and tracks recorded with the same
equipment but through my Audiophile 2496.

   Playback of samples or pre-recorded stuff also sounds better from the
Audiophile although the difference is less obvious. On my old PC spekers, it
would have been harder to hear the difference but now that we have a
reasonable set of monitors, you can hear the extra noise from the Creative
card.

   As the other guy said, the Creative cards are up to the job for some
people and they used to be the best value for money. That is less and less
true, especially in terms of sound quality or if you mainly want an Audio
input device. I agree also that it is very frustrating to see Creatives
adverts where they throw the word "Professional" around willy nilly and
rather deceptively talk about 24 bit recording even on the original Audigy
cards

Just my 0.5 �re

Niall

"Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:f0c1bc20.0304051945.557a8a4@posting.google.com...
> toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message
news:<3e8f50de.19209421@news-west.giganews.com>...
> > On 5 Apr 2003 13:52:30 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:
> >
> >
> > My original beef with your post only had to do with your misconception
> > that somehow those who purchase "pro" cards are somehow getting
> > screwed because we believe some hype about audio quality and could do
> > just as well with a commercial card from Creative and not be able to
> > hear the difference.
>
> Never said that, I was saying that a lot of people likely don't
> realize the results they can get with a SB. A lot of people snobbishly
> poo-poo them and I think it's unwarranted. Will they do everything?
> No, but again, they provide functionality that would have been unheard
> of at ANY price not long ago. And I imagine there are some people who
> drop big bucks on much pricier gear that they don't need, when the SB
> would have suited their needs fine. You could cut a fine sounding
> album with modest outboard gear, a Live or Audigy, a $200 computer and
> of course skill and finesse.
>
> > >
> > >Would YOU be one of the ones willing to put a grand on the line over
> > >the Audigy? (Of course, it's easy to say yes when it's not a reality)
> >
> > Well, it's a no brainer at least with the SBLive....
>
> Didn't say the Live, said Audigy. Sounds like you're hedging...
>
> > It's easy to tell the difference on my moderate system with Event
> > 20/20Bas monitors and a Mackie mixer.
>
> Easy enough where you'd bet a grand on it? Easy to id when you're
> doing the engineering and you know what was recorded with what. Bet it
> would be a lot tougher if you had to depend solely on your ear with no
> other point of reference on a system you're not used to.

On 5 Apr 2003 19:45:13 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:

>toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message news:<3e8f50de.19209421@news-west.giganews.com>...

Ap:
>> My original beef with your post only had to do with your misconception
>> that somehow those who purchase "pro" cards are somehow getting
>> screwed because we believe some hype about audio quality and could do
>> just as well with a commercial card from Creative and not be able to
>> hear the difference.

Doc:
>Never said that, I was saying that a lot of people likely don't
>realize the results they can get with a SB.

For the record: Here's exactly what you said, I went back and picked
up the message it was in response to this statement from mehere. 


Mehere:
>You get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that people pay $800 or more
>for a card such as a RME Hamerfall just for the boasting rights? Your

Doc:
>"Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
>you think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the cost
>you can have high quality midi/digital audio from one source. For
>anyone who doesn't need multi-in/out, that Audigy or even a Live card
>will do a spectacular job."

Ap

toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message news:<3e8fd0e8.1715316@news-west.giganews.com>...

> Hey, you can make great recordings on a $200 cassette 4-track.

Yup, and someone who's skilled will likely get better results than
someone who isn't with the most expensive DAW.

> 
> The M-Audio Audiophile 2496 sells for $149 comes with low latency
> ASIO drivers, audio quality is excellent.

Lower than 2ms? 

> End of discussion, can't believe I'm debating the merits/demerits of
> Creative SBlasters and their ilk..  :-)

I can believe it because I know why you are. And I notice you didn't
answer my question about my hypothetical "put your money where your
sound card is" scenario.  Think you'd ever be willing to put a grand
(or however much would sting if you're wrong) on being able to at
least 95% of the time tell which recording was made on the "clearly
inferior" Audigy card vs 4 pro cards, in a blind test? Probably should
actually make it 100% since according to you the difference is so vast
and it would be like falling off a log to differentiate between them.
I.e., you hear 500 short recordings, 100 identical recordings of
various types, made on 5 different cards. If you can't pick out the
Audigy 100% of the time, it costs you a thou. You so sure of the vast
quality difference to ever take up such a challenge?

s_paliwoda@hotmail.com (s.p.) wrote in message news:<5121b126.0304051802.472bd753@posting.google.com>...

> 
> Could someone tell me what would be the best card for running "1000
> instruments with 100 effects"? Is Audigy 2 Platinum a good choice?

When or why would you ever want/need to use 1000 instruments?

toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message news:<3e8f5754.20863279@news-west.giganews.com>...
> >On 5 Apr 2003 13:52:30 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:
> 
> Also Doc, I speak from experience of using several different audio
> cards...  how many have you used for comparison?

I know what commercial recordings sound like, are you saying your gear
sounds any cleaner than what's on the typical commercial CD?

Further, have you actually used an Audigy? You said it was a
no-brainer with a SB Live. Live and Audigy are totally different
cards. Different chipset, etc.

And again, I didn't make the claim that the Audigy is the defacto
standard by which all cards should be judged on all counts. What I
said is that it gives fantastic performance, that for many it will
give perfectly good recording performance, that to simply dismiss it
as a "gamer" card and useless for recording is baloney.

And that's just talking about digital audio. It's a monster as a midi
tool.

docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote in message news:<f0c1bc20.0304060400.541b2d2d@posting.google.com>...
> s_paliwoda@hotmail.com (s.p.) wrote in message news:<5121b126.0304051802.472bd753@posting.google.com>...
> 
> > 
> > Could someone tell me what would be the best card for running "1000
> > instruments with 100 effects"? Is Audigy 2 Platinum a good choice?
> 
> When or why would you ever want/need to use 1000 instruments?

I didn't mean it litterally, of course :). I just want to have about
10 instruments runnning simultaneously and the ability to apply few
effects without worrying that my PC will stutter to death. What would
be the soundcard that might fit the bill?  I've upgraded my system to
P4 2Ghz, and 256MB RAM, and now I need a good soundcard for my musical
projects. Any suggestions?

S.P.

Hi Doc,

 I used to use an SBlive and still have it in my old
PC and it is OK as a pc soundcard and game card.
IMHO it's not that the SBLive or Audigy sound bad but here are 10 reasons
I can think of NOT to use one.

1.  The hardware is locked to a 48khz sample rate.
2.  Sample CD's will have to be resampled to 48khz.
3.  Some VSTi's won't work properly at 48khz such as the EVP73 which needs a
44.1Khz sample rate to play in tune.
4.  Creative drivers are buggy.
5.  Creative software is shitty and buggy and installs, or tries to, a lot
of crap that is either unusable or useless.
6.  The Audigy is advertised as a 24 bit card but is incapable of recording
at 24 bit.
7.  It is advertised as having low latency but try using 2ms with 10 VSTi's
and effects at once. hehehe
8.  No professional +4db setting
9.  No professional XLR mic inputs or preamps
10. SB and Audigy do not work with GigaStudio on W2k/XP

...and the list goes on

Cheers,
JS


"Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0c1bc20.0304051951.57b2ad33@posting.google.com...
> "Dave G" <SpamS@ndwich.com> wrote in message
news:<b6nnt5$4v8$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> > >> Would YOU be one of the ones willing to put a grand on the line over
the
> > Audigy? (Of course, it's easy to say yes when it's not a reality)
> >
> > Haha-I did!
> >
> > Why?because I could hear the difference the "better" soundcard made to
the
> > sound I could capture of my Sax playing.
> > That's right I COULD hear the difference.
>
> When you KNEW which recording was made with which card. I said a blind
> test. In my hypothetical test, you hear 100 recordings you didn't
> make, of the same material made on 6 different cards. Pick out the
> Audigy at least 95 out of 100 times. If you're wrong, it costs you a
> grand.

toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message news:<3e8fec45.8720279@news-west.giganews.com>...
> On 5 Apr 2003 19:45:13 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:

> >Never said that, I was saying that a lot of people likely don't
> >realize the results they can get with a SB.
> 
> For the record: Here's exactly what you said, I went back and picked
> up the message it was in response to this statement from mehere. 
> 
> 
> Mehere:
> >You get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that people pay $800 or more
> >for a card such as a RME Hamerfall just for the boasting rights? Your
> 
> Doc:
> >"Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
> >you think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the cost
> >you can have high quality midi/digital audio from one source. For
> >anyone who doesn't need multi-in/out, that Audigy or even a Live card
> >will do a spectacular job."


Yup, and I still stand by that statement. Notice that I didn't say
"there is no card quieter, as/more accurate, etc. etc.". But for a
large number of users, the difference is going to be insignificant.
There is definitely a huge gap in the price/performance ratio between
Audigy and other cards, in light of the fact that you get ultra
powerful midi capabilities in the bargain.

And you still haven't answered 2 questions:

1) Have you ever used an Audigy? Not a Live, and Audigy.
2) The hypothetical listening challenge. i.e. putting a chunk of
change on your ability to pick out the Audigy in a blind comparison.

s_paliwoda@hotmail.com (s.p.) wrote in message news:<5121b126.0304061204.4a3dbc16@posting.google.com>...

> > 
> > When or why would you ever want/need to use 1000 instruments?
> 
> I didn't mean it litterally, of course :). I just want to have about
> 10 instruments runnning simultaneously and the ability to apply few
> effects without worrying that my PC will stutter to death. What would
> be the soundcard that might fit the bill?  I've upgraded my system to
> P4 2Ghz, and 256MB RAM, and now I need a good soundcard for my musical
> projects. Any suggestions?

Wasn't sure if you were being a wiseacre...sometimes tonuge in cheek
subtlety doesn't come across on the 'net...

It depends on what your needs are. When you say 10 instruments, I
assume you mean 10 midi instruments. SoundBlaster cards are incredible
for Midi because they use system RAM instead of an onboard chip.

They also have tools to make your own SF instruments or modify
existing ones without too much trouble.

An issue with the Live is that it has a 32 meg limit on accessible
ram. Not a measly amount of RAM but you can easily exceed it with big
Soundfonts. The Audigy doesn't have this limit. However much RAM you
have, you can use the Lion's share of it for midi patches.

However...

Be advised, the Audigy has been plagued with some problems. Many of
which from what I've read, aren't actually the fault of the card but
of a particular chipset that is on some mobos, so you might check to
see if yours is one that uses a "Via" chipset.

Also, if you go the Audigy route, I would definitely stuff as much RAM
into that machine as possible. If it'll hold a gig, put a gig in. That
will allow you to make humongous midi patches with big loops or no
loops at all.

On 7 Apr 2003 04:37:53 -0700, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:

>toofar@fromthesun.com (Aphelion) wrote in message news:<3e8fec45.8720279@news-west.giganews.com>...
>> On 5 Apr 2003 19:45:13 -0800, docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote:
>
>> >Never said that, I was saying that a lot of people likely don't
>> >realize the results they can get with a SB.
>> 
>> For the record: Here's exactly what you said, I went back and picked
>> up the message it was in response to this statement from mehere. 
>> 
>> 
>> Mehere:
>> >You get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that people pay $800 or more
>> >for a card such as a RME Hamerfall just for the boasting rights? Your
>> 
>> Doc:
>> >"Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
>> >you think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the cost
>> >you can have high quality midi/digital audio from one source. For
>> >anyone who doesn't need multi-in/out, that Audigy or even a Live card
>> >will do a spectacular job."
>
>There is definitely a huge gap in the price/performance ratio between
>Audigy and other cards, in light of the fact that you get ultra
>powerful midi capabilities in the bargain.



>And you still haven't answered 2 questions:
>
>1) Have you ever used an Audigy? Not a Live, and Audigy.
>2) The hypothetical listening challenge. i.e. putting a chunk of
>change on your ability to pick out the Audigy in a blind comparison.

No, I said at least twice that I've never heard an Audigy, that my
basis for comparison is a Sounblaster Live. Your brain must be addled
from listening to the Audigy's harmonic distortion and bad MIDI/Audio
sync.  :-)

And would I put my money where my mouth is, absolutely. If the test
was fair and coverered a full range of music, including classical and
jazz, as well as full range sound efx and test tones. Not just
playback either... the source would have to be recorded and played
back on each card.

And btw, the low latency $149 M-Audio Audiophile 2496 and an
inrexpensive soft-sampler like:
http://www.vsampler.com/english/index.html

At $43usd VSampler buys a lot of power including soundfont support as
well as support for AKAI and Steinbergs LM4.

There are always choices.

Ap 

"Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0c1bc20.0304051951.57b2ad33@posting.google.com...
> "Dave G" <SpamS@ndwich.com> wrote in message
news:<b6nnt5$4v8$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> > >> Would YOU be one of the ones willing to put a grand on the line over
the
> > Audigy? (Of course, it's easy to say yes when it's not a reality)
> >
> > Haha-I did!
> >
> > Why?because I could hear the difference the "better" soundcard made to
the
> > sound I could capture of my Sax playing.
> > That's right I COULD hear the difference.
>
 When you KNEW which recording was made with which card. I said a blind
test. In my hypothetical test, you hear 100 recordings you didn't make, of
the same material made on 6 different cards. Pick out the Audigy at least 95
out of 100 times. If you're wrong, it costs you a grand.

Nonsense.
With a plethora of FX,EQ and god knows what else anything is possible,that
is not a fair test.
How about my Sax recorded on my set up on 6 different cards,price ranging
from �20-�1000 and pick out the
Audigy.
For the record,I'm talking about what I can hear in my recordings not
someone else's.
I'm talking about what's important to me not someone else.
That is why I add the "if it works for you" addendum.

ATB-DG.

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:05:54 +0100, "Dave G" <SpamS@ndwich.com> wrote:


Dave,

Doc hears (and reads) only what he wants to.... it's a useless
argument.

Professionls want the good stuff because we want to hear what we're
doing as accurately as possible.... could we do it with a
SBLive/Audigy... yeah, probably. But what's a few hundred dollars more
for a quality piece of equipment. My RME card is one of the least
expensive pieces of equipment I own.

>Doc: "Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would like
> >you think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the cost
> >you can have high quality midi/digital audio from one source."

And I'm sure RME, M-Audio are not the least bit "irked" as both
companies are doing exremely well and it's certainly not because of
some B.S hype they're pulling over the public's eyes. 

I own older Gibson and Fender guitars because to my ear, they sound
better.. and guess what, they cost a bit more as well. I don't mind
paying for quality.

I have a T-Shirt that says.... "Life Is Too Short For Bad Tone" 

Ap



>"Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:f0c1bc20.0304051951.57b2ad33@posting.google.com...
>> "Dave G" <SpamS@ndwich.com> wrote in message
>news:<b6nnt5$4v8$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>
>> > >> Would YOU be one of the ones willing to put a grand on the line over
>the
>> > Audigy? (Of course, it's easy to say yes when it's not a reality)
>> >
>> > Haha-I did!
>> >
>> > Why?because I could hear the difference the "better" soundcard made to
>the
>> > sound I could capture of my Sax playing.
>> > That's right I COULD hear the difference.
>>
> When you KNEW which recording was made with which card. I said a blind
>test. In my hypothetical test, you hear 100 recordings you didn't make, of
>the same material made on 6 different cards. Pick out the Audigy at least 95
>out of 100 times. If you're wrong, it costs you a grand.
>
>Nonsense.
>With a plethora of FX,EQ and god knows what else anything is possible,that
>is not a fair test.
>How about my Sax recorded on my set up on 6 different cards,price ranging
>from �20-�1000 and pick out the
>Audigy.
>For the record,I'm talking about what I can hear in my recordings not
>someone else's.
>I'm talking about what's important to me not someone else.
>That is why I add the "if it works for you" addendum.
>
>ATB-DG.
>
>

"Aphelion" <toofar@fromthesun.com> wrote in message
news:3e91bed6.4168163@news-west.giganews.com...
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 19:05:54 +0100, "Dave G" <SpamS@ndwich.com> wrote:
 Dave,
>
> Doc hears (and reads) only what he wants to.... it's a useless
> argument.
>
Indeed,but to suggest I might be posing(with a soundcard?,I got Ray bans for
that!)or have been misled,ripped off etc is ridiculous.

Professionls want the good stuff because we want to hear what we're doing as
accurately as possible.... could we do it with a SBLive/Audigy... yeah,
probably. But what's a few hundred dollars more for a quality piece of
equipment. My RME card is one of the least expensive pieces of equipment I
own.

It is unfortunate but as with most things you get what you pay for.
OK,I'll accept the argument why have a Rolls Royce when a Ford will do but
RR drivers know the difference is vast.


Doc: "Well, I'm sure that's what the makers of the "Pro" cards would likeyou
think anyway. It likely irks them that for a fraction of the costyou can
have high quality midi/digital audio from one source."
>
> And I'm sure RME, M-Audio are not the least bit "irked" as both companies
are doing exremely well and it's certainly not because of some B.S hype
they're pulling over the public's eyes.

Far from it.These engineers,software writers know their onions and know them
well.

 I own older Gibson and Fender guitars because to my ear, they sound
better.. and guess what, they cost a bit more as well. I don't mind paying
for quality.
 >
> Ap

Yep,I too subscribe to that,FFS on a horn that costs �2600+ when assembled
and playing,I want THAT sound on tape(well...hard disk),nothing less than
that which will within reason,for me,in my studio,by my judgement-sound
ACCURATE will do.
If spending that money on a Sax setup has people agog-well that's the real
world,sorry

" I have a T-Shirt that says.... "Life Is Too Short For Bad Tone"

I should have several of those T-shirts!!

There is little else for me to say but from my experience the better
sounding equipment-mixers,mics,FX,amps,speakers,PA's,CD
players,turntables-all that stuff,benefit the behearer,it's unfortunately
not cheap equipment.

ATB-DG.

docsavage20@yahoo.com (Doc) wrote in message news:<f0c1bc20.0304070935.4fbef34d@posting.google.com>...
> s_paliwoda@hotmail.com (s.p.) wrote in message news:<5121b126.0304061204.4a3dbc16@posting.google.com>...


> Be advised, the Audigy has been plagued with some problems. Many of
> which from what I've read, aren't actually the fault of the card but
> of a particular chipset that is on some mobos, so you might check to
> see if yours is one that uses a "Via" chipset.
> 
> Also, if you go the Audigy route, I would definitely stuff as much RAM
> into that machine as possible. If it'll hold a gig, put a gig in. That
> will allow you to make humongous midi patches with big loops or no
> loops at all.

Thanks for the info. Yes, I'm planning on getting as much RAM as
possible. But I haven't decided on which card to choose. Frankly, I
don't know what criteria I should apply when comparing these
soundcards. My current system dies whenever I try to run 2 VST
instruments, and all I want is a card that will give me the comfort of
not worrying about the amount of system resources available when I
want to create something.

S.P.

"Dave G" <SpamS@ndwich.com> wrote in message news:<b6sem3$trb$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>  When you KNEW which recording was made with which card. I said a blind
> test. In my hypothetical test, you hear 100 recordings you didn't make, of
> the same material made on 6 different cards. Pick out the Audigy at least 95
> out of 100 times. If you're wrong, it costs you a grand.
> 
> Nonsense.
> With a plethora of FX,EQ and god knows what else anything is possible,that
> is not a fair test.
> How about my Sax recorded on my set up on 6 different cards,price ranging
> from �20-�1000 and pick out the
> Audigy.

I didn't think I needed to spell out that I was referring to all else
being equal. Same mic, same pre-amp, let's say flat EQ, whatever, all
outboard gear being identical, no internal effects being used,
probably best to use no reverb to avoid masking anything. The whole
point BEING to make a direct, apples to apples comparison. Cards
A,B,C,D,E. Presumably 4 of the 5 being pricey high-end pro audio
cards.