Is it worth me getting a new sound card?

AlFo · July 26th, 2007, 09:47 PM

At the moment I have a Soundblaster Audigy 2 zs platinum edition, which of course is a great consumer card.

It's been good because it has a break out box with headphones, line in and mic/line in as well as firewire and digital i/o on the front.

Anyway recently I've been reading about mixers and various sound cards with 4 in 4 out, 8 in 8 out etc and I'm wondering if its worth me getting a new soundcard.

Basically what I'm asking is what would getting a proper audio interface soundcard allow me to do that the audigy doesn't?

Thanks

Alex

Skully · July 26th, 2007, 09:56 PM

It depends on what you want to do. Do you need more inputs? Some might say that a higher end soundcard would have better digital to analog converters than a Soundblaster card, but who knows how high up the soundcard food chain you would have to go for the difference to be audible.

AlFo · July 26th, 2007, 10:12 PM

More input may be useful but I don't tend to record more than a track at once.

If I had a soundcard with 4 inputs would I then be able to tick 4 recording options in the windows recording/volume control? And I take it in programs like sonar I would have to chose my 4 tracks to record on and specify which channel each gets its recording from?

Would I also get better midi latency? When I have my keyboard connected I have to set it really low otherwise the sound comes much later than the key press. But then this makes Sonar unstable.

Skully · July 26th, 2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

If I had a soundcard with 4 inputs would I then be able to tick 4 recording options in the windows recording/volume control?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but... I would say it's dependent on whether or not the soundcard has input volume controls for each channel either in a software mixer or the hardware itself.

Quote:

And I take it in programs like sonar I would have to chose my 4 tracks to record on and specify which channel each gets its recording from?

Yes. For instance, when I record drums, I use six tracks. So I have a template set up in Sonar so I can just click on Insert From Track Template > Drum Tracks, and it loads six tracks with preset input assignments.

Remember, just because the soundcard has X number of inputs, it doesn't necessarily mean it can record all of them at once. Make sure it's spelled out in the specs. Look for the phrases like "full duplex recording."

AlFo · July 26th, 2007, 10:40 PM

Ok thanks for that reply, thats helped out a lot.

With regards for the out puts of a sound card. Why do you need 4 out puts as well as the 4 inputs? And I take it these out puts are not out puts like you find on a 5.1 surround sound soundcard.

Thanks again

Ben Harmless · July 26th, 2007, 11:06 PM

Outputs are great to have. They'll do a few things for ya:

1. If you wanted to go with an outboard mixer, the more outputs you've got, the more tracks you can rout out to the mixer for mixdown.

2. If you want to interface with outboard gear like compressors, EQ, reverb, delay, etc. you can send the signal out one of the outputs to the processor, and back in through an input. The more outputs you have, the more of this you can do simultaneously.

3. You can send separate mixes to the separate outs, for individual monitoring by the musicians in your multi-million dollar studio.

I'll testify that you don't need to go very high up the audio foodchain to get significant results. I replaced my Sound Blaster with a Lexicon Alpha interface, and I could hear the difference right away - or at least after the several hours it took to set the damn thing up. I don't recommend the Lexicon.

There are a number of companies that sell USB and firewire interfaces. For your purposes, a nice USB box would probably work well. You can usually get 2 ins and 2 outs from a USB box, which is nice if you want to record stereo signals.

As far as MIDI goes, I don't use it much. What I have done with it was with a USB-equipped MIDI controller, and I never had any problems with latency going straight into a USB port.

Skully · July 26th, 2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

With regards for the out puts of a sound card. Why do you need 4 out puts as well as the 4 inputs? And I take it these out puts are not out puts like you find on a 5.1 surround sound soundcard.

To send to different destinations -- control room, outboard effects, power amp, computer speakers, etc.

StuH · July 27th, 2007, 01:11 AM

I think a new audio interface is a good idea if you are really are serious and have a keen interest in this. Like Ben mentioned with his Lexicon Alpha, I had a similar noticeable improvement with a Presonus Firebox. The AD/DA converters and onboard pre-amps are going to be better quality. Usually the soundblaster type cards will state that they are 24 bit cards but usually they record at 16 bit and playback at 24. 16 bit versus 24 bit effect on audio quality is debateable though.

Also usually more inputs depending on the card/interface. Say with the Presonus Firebox you get 2 mic/instrument inputs with phantom power available for microphones which need it. Midi in and out which I find is of huge benefits for me. SPDIF (2 channels) which is also great as I hook up my effects processor through this and 4 line level inputs. Originally I felt all I really needed was a couple of instrument inputs but I'm using pretty much all my inputs. Lots of outputs too which was already discussed.

Regardless of manufacturer, for $300 you will be able to get something either USB or Firewire that will more than meet your needs. Be cautious because some manufacturer's audio interfaces are Protools specific.

Tim Armstrong · July 27th, 2007, 11:41 AM

Like I mentioned in a recent thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Armstrong

In these days of USB and Firewire recording interfaces, it's easy to forget that a good soundcard is still a high-fidelity, trouble-free way to get audio turned into digital zeros and ones on your computer. Often for considerably less money than buying an interface (particularly if your computer already HAS a good soundcard!).

For example, I use an M-Audio Delta 1010lt soundcard (available from most online music stores for just under $200), that gives me 8 in, 8 out. I like it so much I'm about to buy another one, so I can record 16 tracks at a time!

The pros: all the above, plus good converters and the ability to mix "out of the box" on a mixing board (although I don't, generally!).

The cons (as Skully pointed out): it's hard-wired into your computer, so you can't use it on another computer (without lots of hassle), not a portable solution at all!

I'd mention that I'm also very happy with the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card (about $99 at MF) that I put on another computer. Basically identical to the Delta 1010lt, except it's 2 in, 2 out...

Cheers, Tim

AlFo · July 27th, 2007, 02:42 PM

Thanks for all these responses they are definately making the picture clearer.

When I mixdown my projects to make the final track I export the whole thing to a Wav file.

How do you do this using a mixer?

Skully · July 27th, 2007, 04:38 PM

I wouldn't use an external mixer for the mixdown unless you have some excellent outboard gear you just have to use.

Ben Harmless · July 27th, 2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlFo

Thanks for all these responses they are definately making the picture clearer.

When I mixdown my projects to make the final track I export the whole thing to a Wav file.

How do you do this using a mixer?

That's where the multiple outs come in. You run a line from each computer output to the line input on individual channels of a mixer. Then you take the mixer's stereo outs and run them to two inputs of your interface. Bam! You've got a stereo mix. You can also pre-mix (send more than one track to an aux bus and then to the outputs) some things in the computer, and send them to a single channel on the board. This is especially useful if you don't have enough outputs for all the channels of audio.

Skully's pointing out that there are drawbacks. When you do this procedure, you're converting the audio from digital to analog, and then back to digital. Those conversions result in the loss of audio data. With higher-end interfaces, it's not as much of a problem, but lower-end ones tend to degrade the audio quicker. There's also the quality of the board that you use.

Personally, if I had the gear, I'd do it anyway. It's worth it to me to have the faders under my fingers, and sometimes that cheap gear I've got can make things sound good. I don't have a mixer like that though, and I don't have an interface that I could use one with. Not really worth it for me.

Skully · July 27th, 2007, 05:42 PM

If you're using outboard effects enhance certain tracks, I would create a submix of the individual or collected treated tracks on a new track before the final mixdown. Unless you're dying to use outboard, I'd stick with plug-ins, which can be well-controlled in the virtual realm.

Using an external controller like the AlphaTrack with Sonar, you can put parameters like volume, pan, volume, bus send level, EQ, etc., into ACT learn mode and adjust them as the mix plays, and your changes will be saved. On playback, you can watch the fader slide up and down as it follows your programmed mix moves.

AlFo · July 27th, 2007, 08:33 PM

I think this may be the first time I have a clear picture of what is going on...

So lets say we have a song in Sonar with 4 tracks. If I want to mix this down I can set each of these tracks to go to a certain output of my soundcard.

These 4 outputs go into 4 channels of a mixer where I can 'mix them'. Then I wire the stereo out of the mixer back into the inputs of the sound card where I can now record the final song in stereo and presumably using any audio recording program that does stereo?

Now if this is right there are a few things I don't get...

Why would I want to use the mixer to do the levels rather than Sonar? And if I use the mixer do I then not tamper with the tracks in Sonar at all? Just leave them pretty much as raw audio?

And why would I want to do the digital to analogue back to digital conversion when I can do a quick wav mix down in Sonar?

Thanks again for the reply I think I'm slowly getting there.

Skully · July 27th, 2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Why would I want to use the mixer to do the levels rather than Sonar?

I don't know. Some might. I wouldn't. Unless you have a $200,000 board and/or it's personally important for you to touch knobs and faders, I wouldn't bother.

Quote:

And why would I want to do the digital to analogue back to digital conversion when I can do a quick wav mix down in Sonar?

At our level, the recording tool you posess that's going to be closest to pro level is the audio recording program itself. If it's a full-fledged edition Sonar or ProTools, you're not just getting close, you're there. So unless you've got little effects boxes that do some funky tricks you dig, I'd do the mixdown within your software program. In Sonar, use 'Bounce to Track' to comp your tracks into a single stereo WAV file, then solo the resulting track and master it with plug-ins for EQ, compression, limiting or whatever you choose to use. Then, finally, use File > Export > Audio to send that track out of Sonar and create a standalone WAV file.

Ben Harmless · July 27th, 2007, 09:00 PM

Skully is absolutely right, I for some reason just feel the need to pipe in with the reasons why some people want to mix with an analog board:

-They've got $100,000 of classic analog effects that they want to use. Good. more power to 'em.
-They're of the camp that says analog summing is better sounding than the way it's done in software. Fine. These are the people that buy horrendously expensive "summing mixers."

Me? I think a lot of what people hear when they sum in the analog domain is the subtle differences that occur when you've got faders under your fingers. Mixing with a mouse is just never as easy and immediate as mixing with faders. Some would say it keeps people from over-tweaking, and that's a good argument. I personally think that faders make it nice and easy for people to make the changes that they might not make if they had to do everything with a mouse.

That's why I like digital control surfaces better. Unfortunately, they're all out of my budget, and if I had the money, there are better places for me to spend it.

AlFo · July 27th, 2007, 09:21 PM

Thanks again for the responses you've all been a great help. So I guess I'm going to have to ask myself if a) Do I want to record lots of people at the same time. b) am I willing to spend the money to get a noticable difference over the digital mix down and c) do I want to play with real faders.

Hmm....

July 26th, 2007, 09:47 PM	#1 (permalink)
AlFo Tele-Meister Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Wolverhampton, UK Age: 28 Posts: 111 10 Photos	Is it worth me getting a new sound card? At the moment I have a Soundblaster Audigy 2 zs platinum edition, which of course is a great consumer card. It's been good because it has a break out box with headphones, line in and mic/line in as well as firewire and digital i/o on the front. Anyway recently I've been reading about mixers and various sound cards with 4 in 4 out, 8 in 8 out etc and I'm wondering if its worth me getting a new soundcard. Basically what I'm asking is what would getting a proper audio interface soundcard allow me to do that the audigy doesn't? Thanks Alex

July 26th, 2007, 09:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
Skully Friend of Leo's Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Glamorous NoHo Posts: 3,987	It depends on what you want to do. Do you need more inputs? Some might say that a higher end soundcard would have better digital to analog converters than a Soundblaster card, but who knows how high up the soundcard food chain you would have to go for the difference to be audible. __________________ Myspace.com/skullysounds

July 26th, 2007, 11:06 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ben Harmless Friend of Leo's Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany, NY US of A Posts: 3,263 6 Photos	Outputs are great to have. They'll do a few things for ya: 1. If you wanted to go with an outboard mixer, the more outputs you've got, the more tracks you can rout out to the mixer for mixdown. 2. If you want to interface with outboard gear like compressors, EQ, reverb, delay, etc. you can send the signal out one of the outputs to the processor, and back in through an input. The more outputs you have, the more of this you can do simultaneously. 3. You can send separate mixes to the separate outs, for individual monitoring by the musicians in your multi-million dollar studio. I'll testify that you don't need to go very high up the audio foodchain to get significant results. I replaced my Sound Blaster with a Lexicon Alpha interface, and I could hear the difference right away - or at least after the several hours it took to set the damn thing up. I don't recommend the Lexicon. There are a number of companies that sell USB and firewire interfaces. For your purposes, a nice USB box would probably work well. You can usually get 2 ins and 2 outs from a USB box, which is nice if you want to record stereo signals. As far as MIDI goes, I don't use it much. What I have done with it was with a USB-equipped MIDI controller, and I never had any problems with latency going straight into a USB port. __________________ "I think I'll go for the life of sin, followed by the last-minute, presto-change-o, deathbed repentance." - B. Simpson

July 27th, 2007, 04:38 PM	#11 (permalink)
Skully Friend of Leo's Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Glamorous NoHo Posts: 3,987	I wouldn't use an external mixer for the mixdown unless you have some excellent outboard gear you just have to use. __________________ Myspace.com/skullysounds

July 27th, 2007, 05:42 PM	#13 (permalink)
Skully Friend of Leo's Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Glamorous NoHo Posts: 3,987	If you're using outboard effects enhance certain tracks, I would create a submix of the individual or collected treated tracks on a new track before the final mixdown. Unless you're dying to use outboard, I'd stick with plug-ins, which can be well-controlled in the virtual realm. Using an external controller like the AlphaTrack with Sonar, you can put parameters like volume, pan, volume, bus send level, EQ, etc., into ACT learn mode and adjust them as the mix plays, and your changes will be saved. On playback, you can watch the fader slide up and down as it follows your programmed mix moves. __________________ Myspace.com/skullysounds

July 26th, 2007, 10:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
AlFo Tele-Meister Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Wolverhampton, UK Age: 28 Posts: 111 10 Photos	More input may be useful but I don't tend to record more than a track at once. If I had a soundcard with 4 inputs would I then be able to tick 4 recording options in the windows recording/volume control? And I take it in programs like sonar I would have to chose my 4 tracks to record on and specify which channel each gets its recording from? Would I also get better midi latency? When I have my keyboard connected I have to set it really low otherwise the sound comes much later than the key press. But then this makes Sonar unstable.

July 26th, 2007, 10:40 PM	#5 (permalink)
AlFo Tele-Meister Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Wolverhampton, UK Age: 28 Posts: 111 10 Photos	Ok thanks for that reply, thats helped out a lot. With regards for the out puts of a sound card. Why do you need 4 out puts as well as the 4 inputs? And I take it these out puts are not out puts like you find on a 5.1 surround sound soundcard. Thanks again

July 27th, 2007, 01:11 AM	#8 (permalink)
StuH Tele-Afflicted Join Date: May 2006 Location: Yukon, Canada Age: 38 Posts: 1,480 12 Photos	I think a new audio interface is a good idea if you are really are serious and have a keen interest in this. Like Ben mentioned with his Lexicon Alpha, I had a similar noticeable improvement with a Presonus Firebox. The AD/DA converters and onboard pre-amps are going to be better quality. Usually the soundblaster type cards will state that they are 24 bit cards but usually they record at 16 bit and playback at 24. 16 bit versus 24 bit effect on audio quality is debateable though. Also usually more inputs depending on the card/interface. Say with the Presonus Firebox you get 2 mic/instrument inputs with phantom power available for microphones which need it. Midi in and out which I find is of huge benefits for me. SPDIF (2 channels) which is also great as I hook up my effects processor through this and 4 line level inputs. Originally I felt all I really needed was a couple of instrument inputs but I'm using pretty much all my inputs. Lots of outputs too which was already discussed. Regardless of manufacturer, for $300 you will be able to get something either USB or Firewire that will more than meet your needs. Be cautious because some manufacturer's audio interfaces are Protools specific.

July 27th, 2007, 02:42 PM	#10 (permalink)
AlFo Tele-Meister Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Wolverhampton, UK Age: 28 Posts: 111 10 Photos	Thanks for all these responses they are definately making the picture clearer. When I mixdown my projects to make the final track I export the whole thing to a Wav file. How do you do this using a mixer?

July 27th, 2007, 08:33 PM	#14 (permalink)
AlFo Tele-Meister Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Wolverhampton, UK Age: 28 Posts: 111 10 Photos	I think this may be the first time I have a clear picture of what is going on... So lets say we have a song in Sonar with 4 tracks. If I want to mix this down I can set each of these tracks to go to a certain output of my soundcard. These 4 outputs go into 4 channels of a mixer where I can 'mix them'. Then I wire the stereo out of the mixer back into the inputs of the sound card where I can now record the final song in stereo and presumably using any audio recording program that does stereo? Now if this is right there are a few things I don't get... Why would I want to use the mixer to do the levels rather than Sonar? And if I use the mixer do I then not tamper with the tracks in Sonar at all? Just leave them pretty much as raw audio? And why would I want to do the digital to analogue back to digital conversion when I can do a quick wav mix down in Sonar? Thanks again for the reply I think I'm slowly getting there.

July 27th, 2007, 09:00 PM	#16 (permalink)
Ben Harmless Friend of Leo's Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany, NY US of A Posts: 3,263 6 Photos	Skully is absolutely right, I for some reason just feel the need to pipe in with the reasons why some people want to mix with an analog board: -They've got $100,000 of classic analog effects that they want to use. Good. more power to 'em. -They're of the camp that says analog summing is better sounding than the way it's done in software. Fine. These are the people that buy horrendously expensive "summing mixers." Me? I think a lot of what people hear when they sum in the analog domain is the subtle differences that occur when you've got faders under your fingers. Mixing with a mouse is just never as easy and immediate as mixing with faders. Some would say it keeps people from over-tweaking, and that's a good argument. I personally think that faders make it nice and easy for people to make the changes that they might not make if they had to do everything with a mouse. That's why I like digital control surfaces better. Unfortunately, they're all out of my budget, and if I had the money, there are better places for me to spend it. __________________ "I think I'll go for the life of sin, followed by the last-minute, presto-change-o, deathbed repentance." - B. Simpson

July 27th, 2007, 09:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
AlFo Tele-Meister Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Wolverhampton, UK Age: 28 Posts: 111 10 Photos	Thanks again for the responses you've all been a great help. So I guess I'm going to have to ask myself if a) Do I want to record lots of people at the same time. b) am I willing to spend the money to get a noticable difference over the digital mix down and c) do I want to play with real faders. Hmm....