ADC recommendations based on your experience
- Thread starter LPA
- Start date
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Yes, you don't get FLAC as a file out of the machine for archiving, wav or MP3 is correct. You take your wav file, flac compress it then. A two step process here.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
Coke doesn't produce a "hangover". If anything it produces a longing for more. Informed opinion here.
I believe that's what I already posted. My Behringer produces either a 16/44 or 16/48 uncompressed "wav" file. Neither has anything to do with FLAC or any other compression scheme.
Last edited:
Well, first of all, it's not quite fair to compare just the price of the soundcard or external sound-interface to the price of a complete digital recorder, as the card/interface alone won't record anything without a computer. And then recording on the computer can be pretty unnerving. And finally: Why would one want to keep a personal computer, a device that's good for so much more complex tasks, busy with such a trivial task as recording an audio signal, when one can just as well use dedicated digital recorder, which doesn't have to cost much more than a good soundcard or external sound interface and will not rarely only consume a fraction of the power?
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
goofytwoshoes
New Member
Check out the Korg MR2 digital recorder. Small size, big performance. Records PCM up to 24/192, and DSD. No connection to computer needed while recording, as it records to an SD card. No recording software needed. Inputs/outputs are mini-jacks (use an adapter to connect RCAs). Runs on battery or from USB power, I have mostly used a USB charger to power mine. Headphone output for monitoring. I've recorded LPs to DSD, as I like the sound quality - can't hear any difference between the LP and the recorded DSD file. I've recorded some LPs with turntable plugged directly into the MR2, and then played back using the RIAA feature in AudioGate4 (download free and use with any Korg MR or DS DAC device. Playback from MR2 is geared toward monitoring and pro use, so I have a Korg DS DAC 100 for playback. Discontinued by Korg, and not often offered for sale used, but worth searching out, IMHO.
I use a pro-ject phono box USB v. It serves my vinyl ripping purposes well. I believe a new one can be had for around $200. http://www.project-audio.com/main.php?prod=phonoboxusbv
There could well be SQ to be gained by investing in a higher dollar ADC, I don't have any experience. I went the other direction on my ADC, with the Behringer 222. I have A/B'ed the digital recording with the same source vinyl and have much difficulty telling them apart (certainly impossible to 100 % of the time). This is recording at 16bit 44.1khz. Money is always a consideration for me, but I was reluctant to "waste" $29 on the Behringer if it wasn't going to cut it, but after several endorsements from respected AK members I went for it. Probably wont be going further up this particular ladder..
I had difficulty telling them apart, it's true, but I haven't messed with A/b testing of it much on different music so it could be the 222 is leaving a hefty slice of SQ on the table with the better sounding vinyl. Also most of my LP's were used, and my AT 440MLb cart ,while pretty good, is certainly nowhere near top of the line, nor is my Technics TT for that matter. I think, for the dollar conscience audiophile that there should be an attempt at matching of equipment as to cost, bottlenecks, etc. I found the little Behringer to perform very adequately for my 30-40 year old somewhat played vinyl. If I had an expensive cart, TT and the best mastered vinyl in new A++ condition, my approach would no doubt be completely different.
Bradbrews
Super Member
I've been using an M audio 2496 pci card for years now. A dumpster grade computer is all that's needed to run it. I'm using a Pentium III with XP and its fine. You can pick the bit depth and sample rate you want, up to 24 bit 96 kHz - hence the name. I typically record at 24 bit, then Normalize the signal to bring the peaks to 0 db, and then convert it back to 16 bit. I've been sticking with 16 bit because so many things couldn't handle 24 bit, but that is changing, so I might start keeping the signal at the higher quality.
Which software to use to edit the signal is a whole nother discussion.
Which software to use to edit the signal is a whole nother discussion.
What is a normalizer and what does it do?
JP
7480 74111110101115
Normalization is not compression.
Bradbrews
Super Member
Processing of the digital file is a big topic. When you record digitally, you cannot have a peak above zero dB. If you do, it is clipped harshly, and all data above zero is lost. There are some clipped peak restoration algorithms that guess at what the peaks might have been, and can help make a wrecked recording listenable, but that's not the goal. To avoid this you must set the levels low enough to never exceed them. This means that when you are done, each recording has its max level at some distance below zero. Since the signal is digital, you can change the amplitude with no effect on the signal other than its magnitude. The normalization process looks at the whole album, finds the max amplitude signal, and measures how far below zero it is. It then adds that value to every single sample in the entire file - much like turning the volume up on an amplifier.
I find this of benefit. It lets you take full advantage of whatever bit depth you record at. If you record at a higher bit depth and normalize at that depth before changing to 16 bit it allows the file to carry more usable data, especially in the quietest portions.
This is not apparent volume normalization like you might do with iTunes. That process does change the signal.
I find this of benefit. It lets you take full advantage of whatever bit depth you record at. If you record at a higher bit depth and normalize at that depth before changing to 16 bit it allows the file to carry more usable data, especially in the quietest portions.
This is not apparent volume normalization like you might do with iTunes. That process does change the signal.
Bradbrews
Super Member
Thanks for the tip on that unit.
My 3rd system, in my pole barn/shop has been fed more and more with streaming audio from the web. I had been just using the PC's sound card, which I know is pretty bad.
The price of the behringer is low enough that I got one for the USB D/A converter, and won't really worry about keeping it in the un-heated, dirty shop.
It has really made a nice upgrade to the mediocre system out there! - (Sherwood S2660 receiver, and some mid grade 3 way speakers.)
It's now got much better bass, and an overall better musicality than before.
bigx5murf
Super Member
I had an EMU 0404 I was using to archive LPs at 24/96. Worked great for years, was very happy with it. But finally decided to replace it because driver support was getting atrocious, and it was having all sorts of weird driver related bugs.
I replaced it with a behringer umc202HD, very surprised by the quality of this piece, especially considering it was like $50 shipped NIB. I'm using a realistic 42-2102a to feed the audio interface.
I replaced it with a behringer umc202HD, very surprised by the quality of this piece, especially considering it was like $50 shipped NIB. I'm using a realistic 42-2102a to feed the audio interface.
SoNic67
Well-Known Member
The ADC in the umc202HD is CS4272, with a THD+N of -100dB is not bad. Not as good as the E-MU 0404 that has PCM1804 as ADC, but the difference is minimal.
Now if we where talking about the "m" grade E-MUs, those had AKM 5394 as ADC, same like the ones used in many recording studio consoles.
Now if we where talking about the "m" grade E-MUs, those had AKM 5394 as ADC, same like the ones used in many recording studio consoles.
bigx5murf
Super Member
Thanks for the info, I've tried searching what was in the umc202hd, and never got a definitive answer till now.
The problem with the emu unit was again poor drivers. They were acquired by creative, and gained their lack of driver support. I think the last official driver I had for it was a vista or win7 based driver, which had to be forced to work on win8/10, and even then would have small issues every now and then.
