M-audio audiophile 2496 vs CL SB Audigy 2 ZS?
Home > Home Recording Forum > Recording Techniques > M-audio audiophile 2496 vs CL SB Audigy 2 ZS?
Posted on Mar 06, 2005 02:14 pm
RollnROCK89i
Member Since: Mar 06, 2005
Hey, I'm just starting to get into home recording. I have a band, and we would like to start doing some recordings.
Yesterday I picked up a Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS for $80 from circuit city, but I'm starting to have second thoughts.
I have not tried recording yet, but I hear that I can get M-Audio Audiophile 2496 for about the same price, and it is a much better sound card for recording, is this true?
How is it on playing music? I am only concerned about two things for a sound card, music playback quality and recording quality. Is the M-audio just as good on music quality as the audigy 2 zs? If it is, I think I might return the Audigy 2, and pick up a m-audio 2496. Thanks.
[ Back to Top ]
Mar 06, 2005 02:19 pm Id sure as hell go for the M-Audio...
The M-Audio cards are made for recording...the blasters (whilst they may SAY) they are meant for recording - arent!
Also, the quality of M-Audio is fantastic. I run a Delta44 (the next model up from the 24/96) and its great.
You could do worse than return the audigy for the M-Audio.
Wlcome to HRC!
Coco.
GeoffSM7b the Chuck Noris of Mic'sContributor
Since: Jun 20, 2002
Mar 06, 2005 04:15 pm I 2nd coco's statement .The audiophile was my first sound card and I still stand by the sucker after 3 years now. The audiophile has no problem playing back audio (that's a big part of recording) . Welcome to HRC .
BleakA small pie will soon be eatenMember
Since: Aug 26, 2004
Mar 07, 2005 08:17 am Yeh, definately the M-Audio! I got done when i first started and bought the platinum pro 2 ZS($500AUD). By the time i figured out it was rubbish for recording it was too late to return it!
Had to spend another $500 on a Delta 1010 LT.
Mind you i play lot of games too, so i'm not complaining about the Audigy on that front :) doesnt get any better. (and DVD's, Music ETC)
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Mar 07, 2005 08:26 am I had an audigy a long time ago. Card sucked and would choke up on me, but my delta 44 hasn't done that yet, and I've pushed it hard. So yeah, I say go with Audiophile.
Welcome to HRC
Mar 07, 2005 08:27 am SoundDisasters are not built for recording use, they are built for gaming and movie watching.
chex81CheeseMember
Since: Jul 21, 2004
Mar 07, 2005 10:21 am Audiophile 2496, excellent soundcard for recording purposes.
Mar 07, 2005 10:22 am yes, a similar card is the ESI Juli@, I dumped the 2496 for the Juli@, much lower latency...but the 2496 IS a decent card, surely SMOKES the Audigy in every conceivable recording category.
chex81CheeseMember
Since: Jul 21, 2004
Mar 07, 2005 10:25 am How many input channels does the ESI Juli@ have?
Mar 07, 2005 10:26 am it's the same as the audiophile, only it also has an optical output and WAY better WDM drivers and slightly better ASIO drivers.
chex81CheeseMember
Since: Jul 21, 2004
Mar 07, 2005 10:35 am ahhhh....I c. Optical output, now thats got to be awesome.
Mar 07, 2005 10:38 am yes, it is.
Mar 07, 2005 11:00 am I use the M-Audiophile 2496 soundcard and it works fantastic. Great sound quality, you won't be disappointed. You'll definitely be better off going with the M-Audio over what you're using now. They've come down in price a lot since I bought mine, too. Made for recording audio.
Mar 07, 2005 06:56 pm Thanks a lot guys, I'm gonna return it in the next couple days, and order the m-audio as no one around me carries it. It looks like $100 is the standard price round the internet, unless anyone knows of a cheaper place? Thanks.