Sound Blaster Audigy2 vs. Audiophile 2496
Home > Home Recording Forum > Gear Gab > Sound Blaster Audigy2 vs. Audiophile 2496
Posted on Mar 25, 2003 06:00 pm
Mat
Music Enthusiast
Member Since: Jan 24, 2003
My roomate recently bought an Audigy2 and boasts that his recording quality is definitly better than my M-audio. Not that I care much because I am very satisfied with the M-Audio and specs alone are not always clear indication of performance, but I guess I'm just curious what you guys think...Anyone has experience with both soundcards?
[ Back to Top ]
Mar 25, 2003 06:25 pm Quote:
My roomate recently bought an Audigy2 and boasts that his recording quality is definitly better than my M-audio.
Please Note Sarcasm:
hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahha, hey, thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Based on specs, yes the Audigy looks pretty good, but then again based on specs the old Cyris CPU's looked good too. The Audigy has great environmental control, decent recording specs and some great sound font performance. But unless you only record 4 track songs, the card is gonna roll over and die. Sound Blasters weakness always has been that the full-duplex usage of it is where it's limits really show. Especially if multiple effects and such are being used.
If you start playing back 16 tracksof audio and try ot record a couple more over it it will have routing problems and stability problems. It's ASIO drivers are garbage, which are, without contest, the highest performing drivers available for the common project studio.
Actually, in some trade mags I have read they test the Audigy series and Audigy 2 series sound cards for recording benchmarks and such as a joke, and it actually rated lower than the live! in many cases.
Don't be fooled by Creative Labs marketing propoganda, they are not for the serious musician. Just small usage hobby users.
Audigy's have their good points, they are great for gaming, cool for multimeida playback and DVD watching and al that kind of stuff, but they never have and never will be for the serious musician.
juesContributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002
Mar 25, 2003 07:32 pm The thing that makes me laugh the most about the Audigt (both 1 and 2) is the fact that the internal AD Converter is locked at 48Khz - this means that any signal that is processed inside the Audigy is running at 48Khz and thus must be dithered down to 44.1Khz when burning to CD resulting in an obvious loss of quality.
It just makes me wonder why it's locked at 48Khz - The only thing that operates that this frequency range is DAT Tape, surley 44.1Khz would have been a much more sensible choice?!
jues.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Mar 25, 2003 09:54 pm I will agree with all. Especially the part about the original Live card being better then the Audigy 2. If you record a blank track with just the open inputs to check for noise level, you will see your M-Audio card will have a much lower noise floor then his Audigy. I still keep a SB Live in my box for GM synth and sound font creation tools. And having done the test with it and an Audigy, my older card has far less noise then the Audigy. So dont let his rant fool ya, becuase he is only fooling himself.
ferrisMember
Since: Mar 23, 2003
Mar 26, 2003 08:19 am yeah everything i record in cubase has to be set at 48, which means i have to convert every sample i use too. Is there much loss of quality when burning to cd?
MatMusic EnthusiastMember
Since: Jan 24, 2003
Mar 26, 2003 08:44 am Ok, that's what I thought...hihi
juesContributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002
Mar 26, 2003 09:27 am Ferris,
Resampling is a very messy business indeed. Depending on the quality at which it is done and the material being processed it can leave quite audiable artifacts in the music and lead to an over all "muddying" of the mix.
Unfortunatly there is not a lot you can do aobut it except remember not to purchase a Creative Labs product for serious audio work again...
jues.
