Subject: Re: ReRe: [linux-audio-user] Demudi looking good, soundcard advice?
From: Emiliano Grilli (emiliano.grilli_AT_poste.it)
Date: Fri Oct 15 2004 - 01:48:26 EEST
venerd́, 15 ottobre 2004 alle 00:01:21, MarC ha scritto:
> I was looking also for a sound card for audio, well supported in Linux
> (specially under Demudi),
> so I really apreciated your comments.
>
> However I've got some more questions which I state below:
(cut)
> I must say first that I'm an ignorant about technical sound issues (but
> I have some knowledge about electronics and spectral analysis so I
> should be able to learn it some day...). This explains the nonesenses
> and atrocities that I may have written below....
>
> For my case, I guess that I should try Delta 44 as I don't use digital
> I/O.
I would choose that only if I really needed 4 inputs and 4 outputs usable
at the same time, otherwise I would check the audiophile.
Consider also that with a multi I/O card you want to have a mixer with
direct outputs per channel or at least inserts or groups (eg a way to route
4 indipendent audio channels from the mixer) - and this is a feature that
will rise the price of the mixer...
> Now I'm ""working"" with a Creative Audigy card and I want to buy a new
> one basically because Audigy doesn't allow realtime monitoring through
> jack (the latency is at least 45ms and for me is too much) and because
> I want to have a good dynamic response to record my acoustic guitar
> (now it saturates the input or I must record at a low volume with a lot
> of noise).
Very strange that you cannot achieve better performance... I don't know the
audigy, but with a crappy sb128 on athlon 800 w 256Mb ram I can get
with "reasonably few" xruns to 23 ms and even to 11 (i speak of the values
reported by qjackctl) - I suspect that your problem comes from not having
an external mixer for conveniently routing of inputs and outputs and for
monitoring what you are playing.
Could also be a problem of a not enough powerful pc?
The cards I mentioned have all a "direct monitoring" feature, that will
bypass the software, so in this they are better... but you definately need
a mixer to enjoy these cards.
I would for now try to exploit the audigy (I'm sure it can do better), and
buy the mixer in first place, then the soundcard.
> This could be a good option for what I'm searching for? Should I buy
> any other external hardware to record acoustic guitar without
> saturating the input? I'm always affraid of external mixers or
> amplifiers as they are very expensive and add noise to my signal.
> Anyone can help me destroy this myth?
There are micro mixers (behringer for example) with 6 channels (2 with
phantom power) starting around 75 euro, as usual, the more you can spend,
the better the result (good mixers are makie and soundcraft, for example) -
but those micro mixers are handy and not very expensive for what they offer.
> [for the electric guitar I currently use an expression pedal which
> outputs "line level" -> it goes through a Red Box Pro (DI) -> I connect
> it to the "mic input" but for the acoustic guitar I only have a mic
> output and I cannot go through the red box...]
I wouldn't connect anything than a mic to the "mic input", instead use the
"line input", you should get better results with line level signals (which
I suppose is what is coming from your guitars).
The best you can do is a condenser microphone (samson are cheap) to record
the acoustic guitar "thru the air" (here enters the pc noise, too, if you
are in the same room ;).
> And finally, 24 bits are enough?I guess it may influence in the range
> of different volumes that you can record (-> to solve the saturation
> problems with my records of acoustic guitar)
It's good (I often use 16 bit, because I don't do too much editing and for
distributing sounds you always have to resample to 16 bit)
Consider that with 16 bit you get 65536 possible values, with 24 you get
16777216 for each sample - so is really best, but a bit unpratical -
especially in home productions...
Having more "bits" if I understand correctly helps you when you do lots of
transformations to the sound, where with less bits you get a greater loss
of information (but here I can be wrong)
> great thanks in advance!
HTH ciao
-- Emiliano Grilli Linux user #209089 http://www.emillo.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Oct 15 2004 - 01:53:35 EEST