At 9:55 AM -0400 7/23/05, Scott Connop wrote:
>Could someone out there give a quick rundown on the most important
>aspects of choosing an AD interface to protect the integrity of one's
>analog recordings during digital conversion? Why are sound card AD
>conversions so inferior?
Yikes. There are thousands on posts on most major sound editing apps
about this, so "quick" is tough. Everyone has their favorite. In
general complaints about a-d quality seem to dissipate when you get
into cards/interfaces 300-400 bucks and up and pretty much disappear
around $800 and up, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be very
pleased with what you can get a $120 card. Spec-wise, they're all
pretty close. A card/interface needs to work well and remain
reliable with your software of choice. If you anticipate upgrading
your software and/or moving to another platform, I'd consider making
all of these decisions at once. To explore card options, I'd start
with the archive of the user's list for your software of choice and
poke in some model numbers and you'll see the +'s and the -'s and can
feel pretty sure you're not making a big mistake. The biggest
problems seem to be around driver compatibility over the long haul.
Some manuf seem to out perform others in this regard. Enjoyed your
comments about what the list does and represents. Best, Rob D
=3D =3D =3D =3D
>
>A quick (or not-so-quick) note on the flap over Walter Knapp. I spend
>most of my time reading posts - the tech level of the contributions here
>tells me that a number of the active contributors here are into the
>subject far more than I am. Everything that is posted here is of
>interest, regardless of the author. I just happen to read Walt's stuff
>with the predisposed knowledge of having read him for about 4 years. I
>know I am getting a very experienced opinion when I read his stuff. But
>I still read all the rest. There are certain subjects that are close to
>me. When I read posts about the extremity of folks' opinions against
>playback or the MacAuley Lab, for example, I cringe somewhat, too. But
>everyone is coming from their own direction and I already said my piece
>a couple of years ago. The list is quite diverse now, compared to when I
>first subscribed. Every now and then personalities and opinions creep
>in, even politics. That's the nature of people. Walt's comments about
>the environmental movement in the States (I'm Canadian) is interesting
>to me even if it has little to do with recording per se. Personal
>evaluations of other's comments are inevitable since the origin of the
>comments is in the public domain of the list to begin with. One has to
>balance having a thick skin with the propriety of what one says about
>someone else in front of the group. In other words, contributors have a
>responsibility to watch their own words. But if you stick your neck out,
>well.... you will invite comment, even when you know your analysis is
>correct. If I am beginner, I want to know what works the best. If I
>can't afford it, or don't have that level of commitment yet, then I want
>to know alternatives. If a piece of equipment is a waste that I will
>regret later because of inferior quality, then I want to know that up
>front. I learn something from everyone. So, please, everyone keep
>contributing.
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Rob Danielson
Film Department
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|