sound card recommendation

Discussion in 'rec.audio.pro' started by Ken Bouchard, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. Nick H (UK)

    Nick H (UK) Guest

    John Atkinson wrote:
    > imthemanbehindthedrums@hotmail.com (drummer) wrote in message news:<e568ecfa.0308241823.3f652c48@posting.google.com>...
    >
    >>i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
    >>sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
    >>finding something a tad cheaper.

    >
    >
    > Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
    > optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
    > protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
    > channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.
    >


    Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
    PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
    was more than delighted by the results on that score.

    The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
    analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the level
    going to the card.

    Nick H (UK)

    > You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
    > http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
    > Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .
    >
    > John Atkinson
    > Editor, Stereophile
  2. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "Nick H (UK)" <Nospam@mridangam.com> wrote in message
    news:3F4B585E.2030709@mridangam.com
    > John Atkinson wrote:
    >> imthemanbehindthedrums@hotmail.com (drummer) wrote in message
    >> news:<e568ecfa.0308241823.3f652c48@posting.google.com>...
    >>
    >>> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
    >>> sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
    >>> finding something a tad cheaper.

    >>
    >>
    >> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
    >> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
    >> Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
    >> recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
    >> LightPipe.


    > Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
    > PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
    > was more than delighted by the results on that score.


    Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
    on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
    a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
    Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
    $100 CD or DVD player.

    > The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
    > analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
    > level going to the card.


    Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
    other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
    no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
    degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
    generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
    clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
    to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
    headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).

    The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
    analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
    match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
    input.

    Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
    is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
    enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
    interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
    digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.
  3. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:11:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    wrote:

    >"Nick H (UK)" <Nospam@mridangam.com> wrote in message
    >news:3F4B585E.2030709@mridangam.com
    >> John Atkinson wrote:
    >>> imthemanbehindthedrums@hotmail.com (drummer) wrote in message
    >>> news:<e568ecfa.0308241823.3f652c48@posting.google.com>...
    >>>
    >>>> i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
    >>>> sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
    >>>> finding something a tad cheaper.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
    >>> optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
    >>> Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
    >>> recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
    >>> LightPipe.

    >
    >> Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
    >> PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
    >> was more than delighted by the results on that score.

    >
    >Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
    >on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
    >a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
    >Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
    >$100 CD or DVD player.
    >
    >> The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
    >> analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
    >> level going to the card.

    >
    >Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
    >other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
    >no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
    >degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
    >generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
    >clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
    >to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
    >headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).
    >
    >The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
    >analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
    >match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
    >input.
    >
    >Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
    >is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
    >enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
    >interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
    >digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.


    You just can't keep from bashing, can you?
  4. "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    news:<_L2cnZcF75XC-NeiU-KYvg@comcast.com>...
    > "John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
    > news:113bd5e2.0308251124.465698fd@posting.google.com
    > > to the best of my knowledge, there were no interruptions of service and
    > > the link was working both when I checked it first thing this morning
    > > and the last time I acessed the review, which was over the weekend.

    >
    > "The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time and
    > place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
    > doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that
    > you knew something that you didn't know!


    I really fail to understand your anger, Mr. Krueger. You had difficulty
    accessing a review in Stereophile's on-line archives. As I could access
    this review both at the weekend and on Monday morning and the website
    server didn't appear to have gone down between those two times, then it
    is probable that there was another reason for your problem.

    > My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes
    > your claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.


    I do wish you would observe the usual social niceties, Mr. Krueger. You
    claim that you are not angry, yet calling me "Atkinson" rather than "Mr.
    Atkinson" or even "John" gives the lie to that claim.

    Back to the matter at hand. I had assumed from the time of your posting
    that the problem you had accessing www.stereophile.com was on Sunday
    evening or Monday morning. Yes our server could have been down, as you
    have claimed, but as I have said, that doesn't appear to be the case.
    My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
    of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
    have gone wrong.

    Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL. It can happen. But if, indeed, you
    were trying to access Stereophile's on-line archives on Monday morning,
    then that is when we get a huge increase in traffic due to the new news
    postings. The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
    server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error, you
    didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
    display, it is possible that this was the reason.

    Whatever the cause, I do appreciaate people letting me know when they
    have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
    Krueger.

    John Atkinson
    Editor, Stereophile
  5. drummer

    drummer Guest

    so the card deluxe seems to be the best for the money...

    will using this card make my alesis lx20 adat usless? cause i wanted
    to bounce 8 tracks to comp, then add on, cause i like the feel the
    adat gives. do you think that would be a waste of time?
  6. "John Atkinson" wrote ...
    ....
    > Whatever the cause, I do appreciaate people letting me know when they
    > have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
    > Krueger.


    Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
    are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
    reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.
  7. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
    news:113bd5e2.0308260631.6dfa5da5@posting.google.com...
    > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    > news:<_L2cnZcF75XC-NeiU-KYvg@comcast.com>...
    > > "John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
    > > news:113bd5e2.0308251124.465698fd@posting.google.com
    > > > to the best of my knowledge, there were no interruptions of service

    and
    > > > the link was working both when I checked it first thing this morning
    > > > and the last time I accessed the review, which was over the weekend.

    > >
    > > "The best of my knowledge" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the time

    and
    > > place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
    > > doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that
    > > you knew something that you didn't know!

    >
    > I really fail to understand your anger, Mr. Krueger.


    What anger? I was merely making light of your diminished mental and ethical
    state, Atkinson.

    >You had difficulty
    > accessing a review in Stereophile's on-line archives. As I could access
    > this review both at the weekend and on Monday morning and the website
    > server didn't appear to have gone down between those two times, then it
    > is probable that there was another reason for your problem.


    "didn't appear to have gone donw" admits no knowledge whatsoever at the
    time and
    place I mentioned the interruption of service, doesn't it Atkinson? No
    doubt, that was your situation. Nice deceptive way to make it seem that
    you knew something that you didn't know!


    > > My statement was correct at the time and place I made it, which makes
    > > your claim that it was false totally incorrect, Atkinson.


    > I do wish you would observe the usual social niceties, Mr. Krueger.


    IMO, if you observed the usual social niceties you'd shut your lying
    ragazine down, Atkinson. So what do social niceties have to do with any
    discussion involving you and your ragazine, Atkinson?

    > You claim that you are not angry, yet calling me "Atkinson" rather than

    "Mr.
    > Atkinson" or even "John" gives the lie to that claim.


    Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
    name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

    > Back to the matter at hand. I had assumed from the time of your posting
    > that the problem you had accessing www.stereophile.com was on Sunday
    > evening or Monday morning.


    Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
    particular time and date.

    >Yes our server could have been down, as you
    > have claimed, but as I have said, that doesn't appear to be the case.


    Rather than belaboring this issue Atkinson, why not admit that anybody with
    a modicum of social grace would have simply said that you just checked the
    file in question and had no problem accessing it at that time?

    > My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
    > of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
    > have gone wrong.


    In which alternative universe, Atkinson?

    > Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.


    Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
    line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it up
    from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your site
    www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.

    > It can happen. But if, indeed, you
    > were trying to access Stereophile's on-line archives on Monday morning,
    > then that is when we get a huge increase in traffic due to the new news
    > postings.


    Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
    particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was not
    on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.

    >The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
    > server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error, you
    > didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
    > display, it is possible that this was the reason.


    Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
    http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xsWdnRUuGJE4gtSiXTWJiA@comcast.com can
    see.

    > Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
    > have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
    > Krueger.


    Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and not
    the substance of the man.
  8. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    news:vkmtn7kqhjvoe7@corp.supernews.com...
    > "John Atkinson" wrote ...
    > ...
    > > Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
    > > have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
    > > Krueger.

    >
    > Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
    > are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
    > reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.


    Agreed.
  9. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:04:08 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    >"John Atkinson" wrote ...
    >...
    >> Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
    >> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
    >> Krueger.

    >
    >Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
    >are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
    >reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.


    I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
    connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
    links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
    once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.

    A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.

    Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
    whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)
  10. dave weil

    dave weil Guest

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:11:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    wrote:

    >> You claim that you are not angry, yet calling me "Atkinson" rather than

    >"Mr.
    >> Atkinson" or even "John" gives the lie to that claim.

    >
    >Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
    >name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.


    Not true:

    <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=T...6.831997067@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com&rnum=6>

    <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=T....472$oB2.56@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com&rnum=9>

    <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=T...7.23812413@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com&rnum=11>

    Nousaine wrote:
    > stereophile_editor@compuserve.com (John Atkinson) wrote:
    >> nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
    >> news:<20020805104328.02974.00002156@mb-mu.aol.com>...
    >>> OK, do you believe that nominally competent amplifiers and
    >>> wires have an acoustical sound of their own.

    >> As literally expressed, Tom, no I do not believe wires "have an
    >> acoustical sound of their own," nor amplifiers unless they have
    >> an AC transformer that buzzes. If you are asking whether the
    >> choice of an amplifier or wire can affect the sound of someone's
    >> system, then the only correct answer is "yes," as has been shown
    >> not just in Stereophile but even in the magazines for which you
    >> write, Tom, and has even been expressed here on r.a.o. by your
    >> friend Arny Krueger.

    > OK I would guess then that you really do endorse, even the
    > ridiculous, items that are published in your magazine. I just
    > wanted a clear statement of such. I just didn't think that this
    > could be possibly true.


    If you look at what was written by the Stereophile Editor Tom, it's
    really hard to figure what the Stereophile Editor really does
    endorse. We're talking about someone who is in deep evasion mode.

    For example Tom, your phrase "acoustical sound of their own" has been
    turned into a discussion of incidental mechanical sounds that an
    amplifier might make, such as transformer buzz.

    Then Tom, your phrase "nominally competent amplifiers" has been
    expanded to include amplifiers which you and I would say aren't
    really competently designed, and my name has even been gratuitously
    attached to the discussion.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sorry, you lose.

    Again.
  11. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "drummer" <imthemanbehindthedrums@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:e568ecfa.0308260653.6629f1d8@posting.google.com...

    > so the card deluxe seems to be the best for the money...


    IMO its a good deal. I have 2.

    > will using this card make my alesis lx20 adat usless?


    I don't think so.

    >cause i wanted
    > to bounce 8 tracks to comp, then add on, cause i like the feel the
    > adat gives.


    That should still be possible, although you won't be able to bounce 8 tracks
    at one time to the comp with a Card deluxe.

    > do you think that would be a waste of time?


    I can see still using the ADAT to lay down a few tracks when you are away
    from the computer.
  12. Arny Krueger

    Arny Krueger Guest

    "Laurence Payne" <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:4talkvktbcf2nhk2bal36s6a3ah3g8ptrk@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:58:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >If the recording software you use does an internal mix of the multiple
    > >tracks (many do, example Cool Edit Pro) then you only need 2 sound card
    > >channels for playback. But, strictly speaking you're not playing back
    > >multiple tracks, you're playing back a 2-track mixdown of them. In some
    > >cases this can make a difference. If it doesn't for you, then the Card
    > >Deluxe can work for you.


    > That's a rather individual reading of the terms "Track" and "Channel"
    > as applied to multi-track audio recorders.


    Perhaps I should have said:

    But, strictly speaking you're not playing back multiple tracks, you're
    playing back a 2-channel mixdown of them.

    > Could you quote the recording software that DOESN'T offer a stereo
    > mix?


    Sorry, but I don't have experience with enough different pieces of DAW
    software to characterize how they work, one way or the other. Hence the
    speculative tone of my comment.
  13. Lived EHT

    Lived EHT Guest

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:20:02 -0500, dave weil <dweil@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >>> Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
    >>> have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
    >>> Krueger.

    >>
    >>Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
    >>are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
    >>reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

    >
    >I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
    >connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
    >links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
    >once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.
    >
    >A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.
    >
    >Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
    >whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)


    Much as it galls me to concur with Arnii about anything, I have to
    agree on this one. On the occasions that I've visited the Stereophile
    website, the browsing process has not been a pleasant one. The
    searches take an age. I have often just given up trying to find what I
    was looking for.

    Of course, Arnii's hideous assemblages of broken links, cheesy 90s
    clipart and infant-level language 'shedding light by the means of the
    combustion of snake oil' do not sport a search feature. Maybe for the
    same reason that most people don't have a magnifying glass fitted to
    their toilet.

    --
    Thine
  14. Nick H (UK)

    Nick H (UK) Guest

    Arny Krueger wrote:
    > "Nick H (UK)" <Nospam@mridangam.com> wrote in message
    > news:3F4B585E.2030709@mridangam.com
    >
    >>John Atkinson wrote:
    >>
    >>>imthemanbehindthedrums@hotmail.com (drummer) wrote in message
    >>>news:<e568ecfa.0308241823.3f652c48@posting.google.com>...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
    >>>>sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
    >>>>finding something a tad cheaper.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
    >>>optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
    >>>Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
    >>>recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
    >>>LightPipe.

    >>

    >
    >>Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
    >>PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
    >>was more than delighted by the results on that score.

    >
    >
    > Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
    > on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
    > a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
    > Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
    > $100 CD or DVD player.
    >
    >

    I had already 'upgraded' from a an old, cheap Soundblaster card to a
    ST-Audio card at about $100. It gave me digital I/O and very reasonable
    results when burned to CD, but sound quality from the PC was dire.
    My RME card now seriously rivals my Cyrus CD player which was around
    $600 IIRC.

    >>The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
    >>analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
    >>level going to the card.

    >
    >
    > Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
    > other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
    > no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
    > degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
    > generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
    > clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
    > to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
    > headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).
    >


    Are you saying that my analogue input would not have been too high
    without being 'turned down' externally? It was pushing the CoolEdit
    meter into the red.

    > The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
    > analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
    > match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
    > input.
    >
    > Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
    > is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
    > enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
    > interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
    > digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.
    >
    >
  15. "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    news:<vkmtn7kqhjvoe7@corp.supernews.com>...
    > Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
    > are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
    > reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.


    In a sense, www.stereophile.com has become a victim of its own success.
    The number of people who access the site is large enough to slow the server
    down at times, particularly if you are trying to get a review that hasn't
    been accessed in a time. We have been waiting for quite a while to move to
    a faster server, but this has been stymied by the company's need to move
    all its sites to a common web platform and translate the content to a
    different protocol.

    I hope that things will have improved by the end of the year. In the
    meantime, my apologies.

    John Atkinson
    Editor, Stereophile
  16. imthemanbehindthedrums@hotmail.com (drummer) wrote in message
    news:<e568ecfa.0308260653.6629f1d8@posting.google.com>...
    > so the card deluxe seems to be the best for the money...
    >
    > will using this card make my alesis lx20 adat usless? cause i wanted
    > to bounce 8 tracks to comp, then add on, cause i like the feel the
    > adat gives. do you think that would be a waste of time?


    As I wrote in another posting, if you want to bounce tracks from your ADAT
    to your computer and back, the RME Digi96/8 PAD is ideal for this, though
    it is more expensive than the CardDeluxe. There is also a TDIF interface
    available for the RME cards, for those with Tascam MDMs.

    John Atkinson
    Editor, Stereophile
  17. "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
    news:<g_WcnXjfa90z5daiXTWJhA@comcast.com>...
    > "John Atkinson" <Stereophile_Editor@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
    > news:113bd5e2.0308260631.6dfa5da5@posting.google.com...
    > > My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
    > > of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
    > > have gone wrong.

    >
    > In which alternative universe, Atkinson?


    I fail to understand your point, Mr. Krueger. It seems a matter of logic:
    IF you couldn't access the review; AND IF our server was working correctly;
    THEN something other than a server problem was at fault.

    > > Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.

    >
    > Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
    > line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it
    > up from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your
    > site www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.


    Okay, I was just making plausible suggestions as to what had happened.
    Typing incorrect URLs can happen.

    > > But if, indeed, you were trying to access Stereophile's on-line
    > > archives on Monday morning, then that is when we get a huge increase
    > > in traffic due to the new news postings.

    >
    > Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
    > particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was
    > not on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.


    Okay, your message didn't appear on the Google server I use until early
    Monday morning, which is why I assumed you had had the problem around that
    time. If you now say it happened on Sunday afternoon, I know that heavy
    traffic wasn't the problem. However, as we work almost continually on the
    website preparing Monday's new content on Sunday afternoons and evenings,
    I can vouch for the fact that our web server was working normally at that
    time.

    > > The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
    > > server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error,
    > > you didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
    > > display, it is possible that this was the reason.

    >
    > Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
    > http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xsWdnRUuGJE4gtSiXTWJiA@comcast.com
    > can see.


    Why is it irrelevant? This message merely gives the URL of the archived
    review. Clicking on it retrieves the review, just as I have claimed
    (though it does rather longer to appear than I expected). It doesn't prove
    that doing so didn't retrieve the review on Sunday afternoon, as you
    claimed. If you had answered my question -- did you get a "404" or did you
    merely get a very slow download? -- I would have a better idea of what had
    gone wrong.

    > > Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
    > > have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
    > > Krueger.

    >
    > Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and
    > not the substance of the man.


    And again the anger and the inevitable insult. I fail to grasp why you
    are so determined to pick a fight, Mr. Krueger. As I said, my pointing
    out that the link appears to working correctly is _not_ a criticism of
    you in any way, nor is it a claim of omniscience on my part.

    John Atkinson
    Editor, Stereophile
  18. Mike Rivers

    Mike Rivers Guest

    In article <9dlkkv0rihpeb9baasejp8lg4crhdvk0uv@4ax.com> dweil@comcast.net writes:

    > Bear means "to produce" in this context (or give birth to).
    > Bare would be to uncover, like in "baring ones fangs" for instance.
    > At www.dictionary.com "bear fruit" is considered an idiom:


    "bear fruit" is what you don't want to leave around your campsite.

    "bare fruit" is what you do when someone says "Peel me a grape."





    --
    I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
  19. drummer

    drummer Guest

    > > do you think that would be a waste of time?
    >
    > I can see still using the ADAT to lay down a few tracks when you are away
    > from the computer.


    well, i would bring the computer to the studio if i ever wanna do a
    real recording.

    what i really wanna know is if anyone thinks mixing the 8 adat tracks
    down to the comp, then adding a few bells and whistles will make for a
    better sound than just recording straight to computer.
  20. Scott Dorsey

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    drummer <imthemanbehindthedrums@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >what i really wanna know is if anyone thinks mixing the 8 adat tracks
    >down to the comp, then adding a few bells and whistles will make for a
    >better sound than just recording straight to computer.


    All other things the same, it will probably sound worse because you're
    going through more stuff, and the converters in the Adat aren't so great
    to begin with.

    BUT, doing this can give you a degree of portability, so you can take the
    Adat out to a good sounding room and then take the machine and tape back
    later to import into the workstation. And that can give you a much better
    sound if the room you're working in isn't right for the tracks you are
    doing.

    And, it does make it a lot easier to take the tapes somewhere else to mix.
    You can take the computer to a studio, but you really don't want to be
    fooling around with trying to export stuff while the clock is ticking.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Share This Page