25 Aug
2006
25 Aug
'06
11:43 p.m.
Folks,
I've decided to go with 'making sounds using the Linux box' vs.
hardware synths. What I've heard so far is quite good.
So, the box is making the sounds. Now, the hardware output of that
box should be quite good, not ? It's useless to have 512-bit (!) sound
quality if the actual output to the speakers is crappy (notwhitstanding
the quality of said speakers).
Thus, what are the recommended sound cards out there (since there are
no other way, right ?) to output the nice high-res samples produced by
the Linux box ?
Cheers,
Al
26 Aug
26 Aug
12:53 a.m.
On 8/26/06, lanas <lanas(a)securenet.net> wrote:
Thus, what are the recommended sound cards out there
(since there are
no other way, right ?) to output the nice high-res samples produced by
the Linux box ?
I think even any M-Audio card will have better quality than of a
typical hw synth.
If we are speaking about digital synths.
Analog hardware is a different story, and I don't think you can
replace it with any digital device be it Linux-box or what.
Regards,
Dmitry
1:11 a.m.
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:53:33 +0400
"Dmitry Baikov" <dsbaikov(a)gmail.com> écrivait:
I think even any M-Audio card will have better quality
than of a
typical hw synth.
If we are speaking about digital synths.
OK, so just to make it clear so that I can buy the right stuff, the
M-Audio card can reproduce sounds, is that right ? I can have software
samples that I can use through software that can be played through a
M-Aduio card output jacks (I then believe left and right channels).
So this would mean I don't need any Live! or Audigy or whatever car
dot hear the music I'll play. I just have to buy a M-Audio card.
Then, which M-Audio card would you recommend for Linux ?
Cheers,
Al
1:20 a.m.
On 8/25/06, lanas <lanas(a)securenet.net> wrote:
So this would mean I don't need any Live! or
Audigy or whatever car
dot hear the music I'll play. I just have to buy a M-Audio card.
Then, which M-Audio card would you recommend for Linux ?
The M-Audio Delta 44, 66, or 1010 would work very nicely with Linux.
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
27 Aug
27 Aug
1:35 a.m.
On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 06:53 +0400, Dmitry Baikov wrote:
On 8/26/06, lanas <lanas(a)securenet.net> wrote:
I don't think that's accurate. The highest quality hardware is on the
high-end workstations which are, at the core, digital synths.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
Thus, what are the recommended sound cards out
there (since there are
no other way, right ?) to output the nice high-res samples produced by
the Linux box ?
I think even any M-Audio card will have better quality than of a
typical hw synth.
If we are speaking about digital synths.
2:44 a.m.
On 8/27/06, Florin Andrei <florin(a)andrei.myip.org> wrote:
I don't think that's accurate. The highest
quality hardware is on the
high-end workstations which are, at the core, digital synths.
Possibly you are right. I always forget about this class of hardware.
I meant samplers, FMs and virtual analogs.
And even in this case I may easily be wrong :)
Regards,
Dmitry.
10:56 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 08:44 +0400, Dmitry Baikov wrote:
On 8/27/06, Florin Andrei
<florin(a)andrei.myip.org> wrote:
Well, it depends more on the actual device, than on the class it belongs
to. E.g., check out the Virus TI:
http://www.access-music.de/products.php4
It's a virtual analog, but it's connected to the computer via USB 2.0
and, when you install the software companion, the Virus essentially
becomes a sound card for your computer (you can use the analog inputs
and outputs just like you would use a Delta 66). I didn't test it
myself, but the reviews are very good.
I own an Alesis Ion, another virtual analog...
http://www.alesis.com/product.php?id=9
...and the quality of the analog input/output stages is excellent.
Same can be said about Nord Lead, Poly Evolver and all the other big
names in the virtual analog arena.
Derek Sherinian and his signature rig of 4 or 5 big red Nords went on
tour with Billy Idol, Malmsteen, etc. and it's not likely that musicians
at this level would use low-quality gear.
Samplers? My Alesis QS6.2 is the same: very low noise on the analog
outputs, very low distorsion.
Essentially, anything that's new technology from the big companies is
pretty good. The only exceptions, maybe, are the cheap Casio keyboards
and similar things.
Ironically, it's the old true analogs, vintage Moogs and stuff like that
which may exhibit high noise thresholds and "quirky" output stages.
Again, it's the new technology that shines - Alesis Andromeda, one of
the most recent true analogs, has excellent ins/outs.
http://www.alesis.com/product.php?id=10
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
I don't think that's accurate. The
highest quality hardware is on the
high-end workstations which are, at the core, digital synths.
Possibly you are right. I always forget about this class of hardware.
I meant samplers, FMs and virtual analogs.
And even in this case I may easily be wrong :)
28 Aug
28 Aug
8:36 a.m.
On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 08:44 +0400, Dmitry Baikov
wrote:
Well, it depends more on the actual device, than on the class it belongs
to. E.g., check out the Virus TI:
http://www.access-music.de/products.php4
It's a virtual analog, but it's connected to the computer via USB 2.0
and, when you install the software companion, the Virus essentially
becomes a sound card for your computer (you can use the analog inputs
and outputs just like you would use a Delta 66). I didn't test it
myself, but the reviews are very good.
I own an Alesis Ion, another virtual analog...
http://www.alesis.com/product.php?id=9
...and the quality of the analog input/output stages is excellent.
Same can be said about Nord Lead, Poly Evolver and all the other big
names in the virtual analog arena.
Derek Sherinian and his signature rig of 4 or 5 big red Nords went on
tour with Billy Idol, Malmsteen, etc. and it's not likely that musicians
at this level would use low-quality gear.
Samplers? My Alesis QS6.2 is the same: very low noise on the analog
outputs, very low distorsion.
Essentially, anything that's new technology from the big companies is
pretty good. The only exceptions, maybe, are the cheap Casio keyboards
and similar things.
Ironically, it's the old true analogs, vintage Moogs and stuff like that
which may exhibit high noise thresholds and "quirky" output stages.
Again, it's the new technology that shines - Alesis Andromeda, one of
the most recent true analogs, has excellent ins/outs.
http://www.alesis.com/product.php?id=10
I'm eating my first letter!
Funny thing is that I own 2 Alesis synths - Micron and Andromeda.
I already noticed that Echo Indigo IO sounds better than Delta, but
some how forgot about it again. I have good near-field monitors, but
seems my Delta66 chews all my sound quality and asks for upgrade.
Regards,
Dmitry.
5:18 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:36 +0400, Dmitry Baikov wrote:
Funny thing is that I own 2 Alesis synths - Micron and
Andromeda.
Andromeda - that's awesome! I'm sure you're never bored with that synth.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
7:14 p.m.
On 8/28/06, Florin Andrei <florin(a)andrei.myip.org> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:36 +0400, Dmitry Baikov
wrote:
Yes, it is worth every penny (I bought it used, though, new units
become insanely expensive when they get to Russia)
And returning to our original topic, I just installed RME Multiface
II, which I was dreaming to buy for more than a year.
It's sound quality is SO higher than of M-Audio Delta66, I could not imagine!
All I can say about my first reply - I was talking BS. (just get too
used to my good old delta:) )
Ah, the only problem is lack of Time, as usual.
Best regards,
Dmitry.
Funny thing is that I own 2 Alesis synths -
Micron and Andromeda.
Andromeda - that's awesome! I'm sure you're never bored with that synth.
29 Aug
29 Aug
2:36 p.m.
On Monday 28 August 2006 23:14, Dmitry Baikov wrote:
On 8/28/06, Florin Andrei
<florin(a)andrei.myip.org> wrote:
How do you compare the two?
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:36 +0400, Dmitry Baikov
wrote:
Yes, it is worth every penny (I bought it used, though, new units
become insanely expensive when they get to Russia)
And returning to our original topic, I just installed RME Multiface
II, which I was dreaming to buy for more than a year.
It's sound quality is SO higher than of M-Audio Delta66, I could not
imagine! Funny thing is that I own 2 Alesis synths -
Micron and Andromeda.
Andromeda - that's awesome! I'm sure you're never bored with that synth.
5:46 p.m.
On 8/29/06, Florian Schmidt <mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote:
How do you compare the two?
Not predening on scientific comparison, I just listened to the same CD
records I have, on the same speakers.
As for delta quality, I was first really upset when I was trying to
record a sound from my synth.
Setup was the following:
synth -> headphones - sound was found
synth -> delta66 -> headphones - muddy, without that specific detail
that "made the sound"
synth -> delta66 -> speakers - no that detail also
I had Echo Indigo IO nearby and tried the following:
synth -> indigo -> headphones - gotcha! the same sound i heard
directly from the synth.
I didn't thought the differences would be that obvious.
Everything described is my personal experience and does not predend to
be anything more.
Regards,
Dmitry.
P.S. anyway, talent and hard work mean much more than hardware.
6:18 p.m.
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:46:32PM +0400, Dmitry Baikov wrote:
On 8/29/06, Florian Schmidt
<mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Interesting. What was between the delta and the headphones / speakers?
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
How do you compare the two?
Not predening on scientific comparison, I just listened to the same CD
records I have, on the same speakers.
As for delta quality, I was first really upset when I was trying to
record a sound from my synth.
Setup was the following:
synth -> headphones - sound was found
synth -> delta66 -> headphones - muddy, without that specific detail
that "made the sound"
synth -> delta66 -> speakers - no that detail also
6:30 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:23:53AM +0400, Dmitry Baikov wrote:
On 8/30/06, Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com>
wrote:
yep.
Interesting. What was between the delta and the
headphones / speakers?
Nothing, jack pass-through.
Or you mean analog side? Nothing again, headphones inserted directly
into delta,
How? Mine does does not have a headphones jack.
I'm surprised you got any sound at all.
and speakers are active.
Odd. Active speakers should be fine.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
7:31 p.m.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:45:27 +0400
"Dmitry Baikov" <dsbaikov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/30/06, Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com>
wrote:
Well that's the problem then! Most line outputs simply aren't intended
to drive the low impedance of headphones.
If you have something that can, then you are lucky, but you certainly
shouldn't expect it.
--
Will J G ... who made his own tiny headphone amp for exactly this sort
of problem :)
How? Mine does does not have a headphones jack.
I'm surprised you got any sound at all.
Little soldering and I have 2-mono-jacks -> 1-stereo-jack-plug cable. 
30 Aug
30 Aug
4:08 a.m.
Well
that's the problem then! Most line outputs simply aren't intended
to drive the low impedance of headphones.
If you have something that can, then you are lucky, but you certainly
shouldn't expect it.
Agreed :) Little soldering and I have 2-mono-jacks ->
1-stereo-jack-plug cable.
Try adding series resistors in your jig above. Start with 1K ohm on each of the
channels.
Mess around adding different resistor values between the card and your headphones until it
sounds better.
A higher value of series resistor will make the phones sound better, but you will have to
boost the volume then. Optimum is earsplitting without clipping(you know the grind).
Tracey.
12:59 p.m.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:07:22 -0700
Tracey Hytry <shakti(a)bayarea.net> wrote:
-----
I REALLY think this is bad advice. It is so easy (and cheap) to get a
little headphone amplifier and do the job properly. There are some that
have 'through' sockets so they can act as buffer/drivers as well.
--
Will J G
Well
that's the problem then! Most line outputs simply aren't intended
to drive the low impedance of headphones.
If you have something that can, then you are lucky, but you certainly
shouldn't expect it.
Agreed :) Little soldering and I have 2-mono-jacks ->
1-stereo-jack-plug cable.
Try adding series resistors in your jig above. Start with 1K ohm on each of the
channels.
Mess around adding different resistor values between the card and your headphones until
it sounds better.
A higher value of series resistor will make the phones sound better, but you will have to
boost the volume then. Optimum is earsplitting without clipping(you know the grind).
Tracey.
5:58 p.m.
On 8/29/06, Dmitry Baikov <dsbaikov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/29/06, Florian Schmidt
<mista.tapas(a)gmx.net> wrote:
This isn't a fair comparison. As others have stated, the delta 66
doesn't have a headphone amp and the indigo does. You also don't
mention what the indigo sounded like through the same active speakers
as the delta.
I really doubt there could be that much difference. The indigo is
comparably priced to the delta (and lacks the delta's balanced I/Os,
AFAICT).
How do you compare the two?
Not predening on scientific comparison, I just listened to the same CD
records I have, on the same speakers.
As for delta quality, I was first really upset when I was trying to
record a sound from my synth.
Setup was the following:
synth -> headphones - sound was found
synth -> delta66 -> headphones - muddy, without that specific detail
that "made the sound"
synth -> delta66 -> speakers - no that detail also
I had Echo Indigo IO nearby and tried the following:
synth -> indigo -> headphones - gotcha! the same sound i heard
directly from the synth.
I didn't thought the differences would be that obvious.
Everything described is my personal experience and does not predend to
be anything more.
Regards,
Dmitry.
P.S. anyway, talent and hard work mean much more than hardware.
31 Aug
31 Aug
3:43 p.m.
On 8/30/06, Paul Coccoli <pcoccoli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This isn't a fair comparison. As others have
stated, the delta 66
doesn't have a headphone amp and the indigo does. You also don't
mention what the indigo sounded like through the same active speakers
as the delta.
Frankly speaking, I do not remember. And do not want to test it all
again, because of:
I really doubt there could be that much difference.
The indigo is
comparably priced to the delta (and lacks the delta's balanced I/Os,
AFAICT).
You are possibly right.
It seems to be one of the numerous threads on LAD I replied to recently,
where it was better for me to just read and keep silence :)
That's what sitting home for a week (influenza) without any talking
is doing with me :)
Sorry for the noise.
Regards,
Dmitry.
6459
days inactive
6465
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
21 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Dmitry Baikov -
Florian Schmidt -
Florin Andrei -
Folderol -
Josh Lawrence -
lanas -
Paul Coccoli -
Paul Winkler -
Tracey Hytry