Following a discussion about the quality of on-board PC audio, we carried out a little experiment.
We played a digitally produced commercial CD track through a Denon CD player and recorded the analogue output into a modern PC. We did this first using a top-end USB digital interface and secondly through the computer's line-in using the Realtec on-board audio. We then took the first part of one track and the second part of the other track and spliced them together. The result was burnt to a new CD and played back through the Denon CD player, a Yamaha power amp and Tannoy monitors. The idea was that the quality of the equipment should not mask any differences in the audio.
We played the CD to twenty people and asked them to identify the point at which the track was spliced. No one got it right. Perhaps it's time to re-think where the budget is spent?
ROG.
Correct me if I've missed your point...
I've had an on-going informal discussion with several audio enthusiasts over the last few years as to what comprises audiophile quality sound, and what equipment is necessary to create it.
Some emphasize the use of condenser mics, tube mic pre-amps, high-end A/D D/A converters, 96 Khz - 24 bit digital audio files, tube pre-amps and power amps, and expensive loudspeaker arrangements coupled with acoustically treated listening environments. Many of these folk also claim that analog audio from a good turntable or reel-to-reel tape machine produces a listening experience superior to any digitally reproduced audio.
Others claim that inexpensive (but carefully chosen and deployed) components are equally capable of producing a top-notch audio experience, and that digital audio can be as satisfying as its analog counterpart.
Personally, I feel that digital audio processing in a reasonably capable home computer shows great promise. Your experiment comparing the high-tech USB input to the basic Realtech soundcard input is a case in point. Why go overboard with fancy hardware when the same effect can be achieved by selecting the software tools that compliment quality audio, and then learning how to use them to the full extent of their potential?
You also need to go a little further ROG. The line in on my older Toshiba is as good to my ears as my outboard card. The MIC in on my new computer is not. This is a pretty known fact that on newer machines the outs are very good but the ins are poor.
Oren - I think you've got my drift exactly. People have lots of ideas about what equipment is needed (and it's usually expensive) but, at the end of the day, if you can't tell the difference in a listening test, what's the point?
Silvertones - You're absolutely right, the MIC input is usually rubbish. We only worked with the line in.
ROG.
Well, I agree but we as pro or at least semi-pro musicians are keepers of the faith so to speak. The general public knows squat. They don't care about absolute audio quality or the quality of musicianship either. It's up to us to uphold the quality of the product and it's been that way forever with all the trades. Most people can't tell if a piece of jewelry is top quality workmanship or not but other jewelers know and the good ones have pride in their workmanship. Same thing for pretty much anything that's commercially produced from furniture to cars. I happen to be a big fan of Mercedes. I've never been in a position to buy a new one but have bought 5 ot 6 used ones for 25 years now including my latest 2001 CLK 430. I paid 7K for it, it's great car, the rear seats fold down for loading stuff for my gigs and it literally looks like a 50K new one.
There's maybe 5% at the most of users who can tell the overall sound quality and the quality of the players but the other 95% haven't a clue. That doesn't mean we all start producing crap because nobody will notice. Therefore I buy the highest quality stuff I can afford. I know my EMU 1820M with the external audiodock is much better quality than anything built into any PC and I don't care whether a listener can tell the difference or not.
Bob
I don't think the issue is the quality of the line in, as many today are capable of decent recording using the PC's line in jack, on it's built in card/chip, but the test was skewed a bit to start with. You are sending Digital audio into the PC, All premixed and complete at 16 bit, 44,100 sample rate, certainly nothing a average PC sound card can not handle.
The real isuue with built in PC cards, is the ability to process fast enough not to introduce latency, and not to start to pop and crackle. Take that same sound card and compare multiple tracks of 24 bit, sound and the problem begin. It is not the card per se, but the drivers that lack. Plus the preamps are not the same. But the sound you used needed none of these as it was pre made, and up to the job to start with. The card will do, but all of us who have tinkered with this stuff know very well that the overall quality of what we did came up with at least the introduction of prosumer gear.
If all you are doing is transfering digital audio in and out of the computer, you need nothing more than the build in card/chip. If you want to do heavy recording a reasonable step up is needed. For most of what we do, no one really needs a 48 track pro consloe board. So much is done at the software level now.
Don't kid yourself that a better interface, with well written drivers won't make a difference in a full on recording project though.
If connected to the two Line Inputs, it is NOT digital audio.
It must be analog.
Aa I've been preaching for some time now, the modern PC, due to the large customer interest in media, is touting sound specs that are typically quite good indeed, for the most part.
--Mac
As Mac points out, we said in the original post that we were using the analogue outs from the Denon. In effect, all we were comparing were the A/D converters in the USB device and the Realtec on-board A/D. We chose a digitally recorded CD in order to present a wide frequency and dynamic range to the test equipment.
One important factor is that the judges were all under thirty, so could be expected to have reasonable hearing and they were all musicians, except one who was a drummer. (Sorry drummers - couldn't resist it.)
Once the audio is in the PC, it doesn't matter how many tracks you have, because it's just number crunching and if you mix within the digital domain and then export the result as digital media, all the internal audio is used for is monitoring.
I admit that this wasn't an exhaustive test - it was just an attempt to get us all to think about how we react to marketing and what we really need out of a system.
ROG.
For the most part i am agreeing with you. If you take the output of a CD and run it though the players line outs to the line ins of a PC built in sound card. It is digital signal processed thru a D/A convertor to a A/D convertor in the SC. Whatever comes out of the CD player is going to be the analog equivilent of the Cd itself, and that is 16 bit 44,100 sampled redbook sound. Whether you send that to a PC sound card, a $100 USB, or $500 it is still 16 bit 44,100 sampled sound, pretty standard, and you are right it would pretty much sound the same.
I still say, after doing this for a number of years, myself, and helping a few dozen others setup their systems, that does not negate the value of a proper interface for a good recording system. The quality of the line in specs maybe better today, but the drivers and abilities to handle all the process of a full on recording session is not what those PC cards were made for. I have watched literally hundreds of folks come through over at the Cakewalk MC, every one trying to get the program to work properly with just a PC sound card, and after a lot of hassle, every one that went out and purchased a decent interface found the same thing. Their problems stopped immediately.
If all you want to do is transfer audio from CDs and or other devices to the PC the built in is more than enough. You want to build a real powerful do all studio the interface is the heart of that process, at least to me it is, form my personal experience. Nice thing is, that they are not that expensive anymore from around $100 to $200 you can get a butt load of them.
Quote:
Perhaps it's time to re-think where the budget is spent?
Early on, when I was learning the basics of digital audio - largely from the folks here on the PG Music forums - it became apparent that some enthusiasts were deploying a staggering array of pricey computer hardware and software, only to come up with some decidedly second rate audio. On the other end of the scale, a few stalwart individuals proved capable of producing spectacular sound with spartan equipment and a few basic programs.
Retailers, manufacturers, and their promotion experts have done a very capable job of muddying the waters, to the point where I've heard otherwise intelligent computer audio enthusiasts actually quoting the drivel concocted by some advertising copywriter as if it were a well established fact.
To my mind, if I want to conduct myself responsibly as an experienced computer music buff, it seems that my first item of business would be to sort the hype from the real deal, and help others equip themselves most advantageously with skills, audio software, and computer hardware that get the job done without unnecessary bells and whistles. The original purpose of this thread was to sort through a few possible misconceptions regarding computer music production, and I say "it's high time for some plain talk" on this subject.
Oren, let me be clear. I agree that the hype does not pencil out for the most part. One does not need a top end setup to get decent, even stellar results. I have used a M-Audio 24/96 card for about 10 years now, and it works great. I bought a $99 special Tascam US 800 recently for when friends come over, but i went back to using the delta card. It is fine.
I hear folks talking about their $1,000 dollar interfaces, and their $5,000 interface, and i have to laugh. Having said that while you can get a good clean solid signal in the box with a built in card, they are also famous for being the bottleneck of the system.
I believe that a decent, solid interface or card with drivers written with recording and such in mind is the heart and soul of a decent system. After that so much can now be done in the "box" so to speak. Vocal, and instrument processing is a software world these day.
You hear so much big talk at many other forums about the search for the best interface, the best mikes, the best preamps, the best compressors, the best ..... Well you know, it is silly.
Good frank, and honest conversation about the realities of what practical, and useful, but let's not go to far the other direction.
Oren - To my everlasting shame, I've actually done work for the advertising industry. On the wall of one office was the mantra "If you say something often enough it becomes true".
Rob - In the days before CD, the British Broadcasting Corporation wouldn't accept material on audio cassette because of quality issues. We had a guy come to us with some music which he only had on cassette and which the BBC had refused. We ran it through a noise-gate to keep the intro clean and then onto the Revox reel to reel. The BBC accepted the reel without question. All I'm saying is that sometimes we only see in straight lines.
I'm a great believer in that the end product is what counts. We have a Neuman U87, but we sometimes record vocals with an SM57. Why? Because it sounds right on that particular voice. I think we should all dare to use our ears in preference to running with the pack.
Thanks to both of you for your lively input.
ROG.
Quote:
I admit that this wasn't an exhaustive test - it was just an attempt to get us all to think about how we react to marketing and what we really need out of a system.
That's ok as far as it goes but this is a recording forum not a regular PC consumer forum. Sure, any modern PC is fine for what you did, most of us knew that already. The true test is to take a standard vocal mic like the SM58, put the miniplug adapters on it to run from a nice pro level and quiet XLR cable into the crappy mic input on the built in chip and compare that to running it through any decent external interface with good preamps. Then even further, do that test comparing that 58 through the chip to a moderately expensive condenser mic going through an interface like my EMU that has the Pro Tools pre's with phantom power. Record a good vocalist with a very simple backing like strumming guitar or even acapella and make sure the vocalist is mixed right on top. Of course you will have to run the mic's for both the vocalist and guitar through maybe one of those $20 Ratshack battery powered mixers and then into the mini plug. I say Ratshack because this is a basic cheap minimal equipment consumer level comparison. A lot of your musician listeners can tell that difference easily. Of course if you just want to compare the vocal track only you can use one of the Biab guitar strum RT's to back the vocalist.
All I'm saying is that's what this forum is all about, doing a consumer type test about copying a prerecorded CD is irrelevant to us.
Bob
Well, when I dove into digital recording, I srated out with onboard audio. Gradually and over time, I kept upgrading to better recording gear (mics/sound interface/mixers, etc). As I've upgraded, my output became better each time after an "equipment upgrade".
This can be proven very easily. If anyone wants to start with my oldest song on Soundclick and work themselves up to the latest song, yoou will be able to tell if I recorded with something cheap or "fancy". I sure know that my ears hear the difference and that alone is reason enough for me to have spent the money I have in decent gear (done spending, though - reached the goal I wanted to reach LOL). Of course, getting better with a mix helps too. But you can't mix crap to make it sound good. Garbage in, garbage out.
So, to my ears, quality recording gear is audible... at least to me. I have no regrets about spending the money I have over time, on the contrary.
Just my humble opinion, FWIW.
Cheers,
Mike
When somebody spends big dough on equipment it HAS to sound better to him.
I've had lower latency with on-board chips than cards, but maybe the cards were too cheap.
Like Paul Simon says "a man hears what he wants to hear".
jazzmammal - read back to where I said that the on-board MIC inputs are rubbish.
Sorry if you think I wasted your time.
ROG.
The best thing about a forum such as this is that each of us can read the posts, and then decide if we want to participate in a thread. No-one's time is actually wasted, and all participants will have a lively interest in the subject by the very nature of their choice to chip in. Points of view contrary to our own are potentially very valuable, and I have to admit enjoying a bit of controversy on occasion... =]
I take great pleasure in the "low-rent" approach to audio, because it just seems like so much more fun than throwing money around and hoping for the best. Plus, it just ticks me off when I see some company promoting a superfluous bit of software or hardware as "must have" and fabricating all kinds of data to back up its claims.
Some folks love shiny toys with impressive specs and nifty doo-dads attached - and I'm no stranger to this feeling what with the decidedly bourgeois guitars I favour. As long as they know their gear and get the results it promises, I say, go for it!
ROG has submitted an example of a situation where we could more accurately establish the baseline requirements of a particular group of audio chores, and I think this is a worthy discussion. If we have a good grasp of how little we really NEED to accomplish a task, then each of us can decide how much "overkill" we want to indulge in to suit our personal taste.
In case anyone else thinks this thread might be irrelevant, please let me take a minute to explain how it came about.
Some of the young people we teach have lots of talent, but no money - they can only dream of some of the equipment lists displayed on this forum. We designed a system for them based on any old single core PC running entry-level Power Tracks, with a $50 mixer connected to the line-in and the line out straight into a domestic hi-fi.
Some of them doubted that such a system could work at all and so the test formed part of a demonstration. Many of them are now producing amazing quality from these systems, but the important thing is that it is enabling them to develop as musicians and composers. This is why I think it's relevant - music should be available to all. If we tell the kids that good results can only be achieved by spending big bucks, we do them a dis-service.
ROG.
ROG,
I don't know where you've been, friend. (Perhaps you've been active on some of the forums I don't frequent.) What I have seen of your writing is among the most cogent, helpful, and even inspiring on these boards. It's great to have you as a contributor. I look forward to more.
I was motivated to write in part because of your previous post in which you mention making good-quality music with less than stellar systems. I am about to replace a 10-year-old homebrewed PC with a monstah a la Bob's (bobcflatpicker) new toy. I believe that my old box is truly over the hill, but what you said is in line with guerilla production at its best. Very encouraging.
Richard
Richard - you make me blush!
I've been at this game longer than I care to admit and I've been a Power Tracks enthusiast for over ten years, but I've always avoided forums. I love this forum because it provides genuine help to people and the exchange of views and experience is great. Thanks for your kind comments - it's good to feel part of the team.
ROG.
Rog, that's makes perfect sense you should have explained about the kids up front. I've done the same thing many times. Sure, a basic PC is "good enough" to get a 14 year old started with this stuff. I don't think I've ever seen a high schooler on this forum asking for advice, I was responding from the point of view of someone new to this stuff who's already an experienced player and is past that phase.
If they advance to the point they want to produce something like what they hear on commercial radio or the internet, then they need something a bit better.
Bob
I guess we are arguing sematics, because i have taken this very side many times over at Cakewalk's MC forum, where i spend that better part of 8 years helping newbies setup their system. I have heard the other more experienced users there, tell the new folks that they will never get it going unless they run out and buy a bunch of expensive equipment.
A small Behringer mixer attached to the line in and line out will allow someone to get the process rolling, and do a very decent job. That I agree with, but along that same line (that is how I started by the way) we all know from experience that eventually we realize that a better sound card will make the system more solid, and upgrade the process. Just adding a $149 PCI card (price at that time) made my system purr. I still used the behringer mixer for another 4 years, until one day i bought a Yamaha mixer that i found on the bargain table at Guitar Center. As far as buying a USB interface well, i bought it because it was on sale, and seemed like a good idea at the time. Do i need it, well not really.
Does better gear help you, yes and no, sure it makes the process easier, and you can get better end results, you can have better options, and more choices to use for what you want, but you can do fine without it as well.
I believe you can record and get good results from the PC card/chip, but i believe you get better results from a decent interface. I can build a beautiful home with a hammer and a hand saw, but a compressor, air nailer, and power saw will make it far easier.
For young folks starting out, on a very small budget, ROG ideas are spot on, and i do not want to diminish them at all, he is right on. I have preached this as well. I like oren like the minimalist path for the most part. Nothing i own has been purchased for full price, except my one acoustic guitar. Still having the proper tools sure makes the job easier.
I agree with that too Rob. A similar discussion was going on a few years ago. Someone posted a link to a site where a pro recording engineer did a whole band with just SM57's specifically to shoot down the theory that you have to use expensive mic's. It sounded pretty good, not great but still pretty good, a lot of folks would be happy to get a sound like that. The guy was good, knew how to mix. I have a bag full of mic's including some 57's. Never leave home without them, they're great all around workhorse mic's, I use them mostly for live drums but they do have a distinctive rolloff sound no matter how you post process them. Yeah I know, give me the blindfold test and maybe I couldn't tell which track recorded by the same band was recorded with the 57's and which one with the better mic's but I'm pretty sure I could.
Bob
Bob - I have to admit to being a member of the SM57 fan club. There's one million-selling-album singer who used to insist on using an SM57 for studio vocals because it was "his sound". It made me realize that if you want transparency you use a U87, but if you want that "rock singer live on stage" sound you reach for the 57.
ROG.
I think a good mics and pres are essential. As long as the interface is quiet all is good.
I would never encourage a beginner to start with just anything. If you start by plugging a Nady Starpower mic or their brethren into your on-board sound card, you are going to be discouraged.
With a decent pre, SM-57s are good mics, if that's the sound you are looking for. There are many mics in that range that have differing qualities that would also work to get you started. Some of the MXL condensers and some direct to digital USB mics are good examples.
I use cheap Behringer 8500 mikes they are 57 knock offs, and i find them to have a slightly warmer sound. I also have a AT 2020 condenser, and it is super smooth and crisp in comparison, but it also picks up every other sound, so I have to really treat my home space to use it.
I have a different take on USB mikes though, i find them troublesome. Since they act as a second sound card they often introduce clock timing issues. I never recommend them especially for newbies, as they really struggle with them.
Great discussion, ROG, thanks for starting it. It is really interesting to hear others thoughts on these things.
Good discussion, and interesting points.
My personal experience about the difference happened about two years ago.
Disclaimer: my dual core music computer was purchased seven years ago, so it's not the latest technology.
I was using my EMU 1820M (fairly high end card), but it was crapping out. Searched the multimedia productions forum (where Mac pops in occasionally with excellent advice), and learned that perhaps some capacitors were failing. Took it apart (had nothing to lose - it didn't work), and found several bad caps. But this isn't my story.
When it was out being fixed, I resorted to the onboard sound. It was simply so terrible, that I gave up on music until the EMU was back in operation.
Now, I'm sure that onboard sound has improved as suggested by several here, and maybe my machine just had a "worse than usual" on board sound chip, but I can assure anyone that there was simply no comparison at all in audio quality.
Glenn
My experience is a little bit similiar to yours Glenn. For playback the best on board chip I've had was on my old Dell with yamaha XG on board. On my computer with the realtec, I thought the playback sound was quite disappointing in comparison regardless of all the settings I tried. Getting my EMU 0404 interface and disabling the realtec was a huge night and day difference for playback. The latest new on board ones must be much better.
Interesting discussion.