Quality of Sound Cards

[auggybendoggy]

I'm wondering, if it's true that Graphics cards matter regarding how much information can be processed, then isn't it true of sound cards as well.

After upgrading from a Q6600, my ASIO load is close to the same with an i7 3770 (ivy). I use M-audios 2496, but am now wondering, perhaps it's processor is small and there are different grades of sound cards that can handle ASIO loads better?

Anyone have some wisdom to share?

[Scab Pickens]

I think it depends as much on the quality of the device driver as the device itself.

[auggybendoggy]

But certainly M-audio has done a fair job on their driver for the 2496, right?

[Steve Fogal]

Hmmm... I think there's a lot of factors at play regarding audio cards & how well they work on any given system. I don't think you've given much for anyone to say exactly.

Some audio cards & their drivers work on some systems well, some not. I'm not certain that upgrading your CPU, as long as it's compatible with the motherboard, is going to make things worse for an audio card.
As far as some cards passing more information to & from your computer better than others, and at better sonic quality...I'd say yes ti that general question. Various connectivities available pass more than ohers. It seems the most capable in terms in passing information at greater speeds and banwidth, as far as I know, is firewire...upper end cards, while budget minded audio cards seem to be USB. That's my observation anyway. For quality of sound, I guess you have to factor in mic pre's, converters etc.

I know when I moved my Aardvark Q10 & Aark 24 cards from my single core 1.6 Ghz AMD machine to my quad core Q9300 intel 2.5 Ghz machine, the performance gain was amazing. The Aardvarks loved the change better too, drivers more stable...in spite that I read reports that Aardvarks didn't work well with multi core CPU's...wrong in my case!

I wouldn't know the performance gain between those 2 CPU's 1st hand... but maybe compare the two on those bench test charts..eg; google one vs the other.

Actually, here's one comparrison chart between a Q6600 vs i7 3770

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Qua ... re-i7-3770

Based on the above I'm surprised your performance isn't much better now.

[Steve Fogal]

Reread the original post and I may have missed the point... seems like you're just inquiring about sound cards, or an upgrade to a better one...For me, if I had to replace my Aardcarks, I'd be looking at RME & Steinbergs high end multi I/O solutions. Or being the I/O hog that I am, possibly a Yamaha n12 interface with a Steinberg unit being I understand the operate on the same driver. Expensive solutions but I put a lot of value in my front end.

[auggybendoggy]

No prob Steve. Yea, my main point is that if Graphics cards make a difference then isn't it true about sound cards as well. I would think it is. How many voices can they produce? Can't, like graphics crossfire or SLI, sound cards be grouped to provide more audio power?

These benchmarks never tell me anything (of course I already have difficulty reading them because they don't translate well to my understanding). I would like to see VST benchmarks, that would be something.

Aug

[Jarno]

Yea, my main point is that if Graphics cards make a difference then isn't it true about sound cards as well.

You can't compare these ones.

Graphics cards handle high-level primitives like "draw a line" or "display a icosahedron with Mona Lisa painted on each face". Their ability handle these primitimes instead of handling them in CPU is why their performance is important.

Now, sound cards basically just inputs and outputs audio. Very simple task. They do this more or less effectively, but differences between them are nowhere near compared to differences between craphics cards.

This of course changes, if you have a soundcard which has some processing power built into. Then they are able to handle high-level primitives like "process audio with plugin X" or "mix these audio streams into 5.1". In this case there are huge differences between models.

But for basic audio interfaces the quality differences can be divided into these categories:
1. How well programmed is the driver. This has effect on stability of the driver (no crashes) and how low latency you can get.
2. Clock, converter and analog circuit quality. These dictate how good sound quality you can get in/out of the interface.

[auggybendoggy]

Jarno,

Thanks for the response. It seems like you're saying that there are few audio cards that pre-process. But it seems there should be lots of them. If an audio card could be made with insane processing power, much the way a graphics card is, then perhaps that's what lots of us are missing. In that sense it seems like you're saying, they are similar to graphics cards in that they COULD lighten the load off the CPU by adding in processing power. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I realize most cards on the market are as you describe, but I'm talking about the potential to manufacture cards in such a way.

[Scab Pickens]

Jarno,

Thanks for the response. It seems like you're saying that there are few audio cards that pre-process. But it seems there should be lots of them. If an audio card could be made with insane processing power, much the way a graphics card is, then perhaps that's what lots of us are missing. In that sense it seems like you're saying, they are similar to graphics cards in that they COULD lighten the load off the CPU by adding in processing power. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I realize most cards on the market are as you describe, but I'm talking about the potential to manufacture cards in such a way.

Something like this, maybe? http://www.uaudio.com/interfaces/apollo.html

[Strophoid]

Does it really matter if you pay for a CPU in your PC or a CPU in your audio interface? One way or the other you still pay for the processing power, if it's available in the PC why not use that?

This is only really relevant if your PC is running out of gas because you use a lot of plugins at low latency. Thing is, you can use any plugin on your CPU, while the selection of available plugins on DSP cards is always limited.

[Steve Fogal]

Plus, the original poster asks about 'ganging audio cards together for more power' and I believe he's wondering... 'if it's like cross-fire on video cards'.

Yet again, I see I was missing points in the questions... or that it wasn't made clear in the 1st place... and/or additional statements made are adding to more clarity on intended purposes

Wondering...needing....contemplating... Regardless, more power in audio cards, or their capability to 'do more' ... of whatever that may be dedired. As said already, some audio interfaces provide proccessing power and provide FX's internally, if that's what's desired, as far as I know by adding multiples of a manufacturers audio cards that run under the sane drivers may at least proccess allow each card(s) to add FX's to their own set of input/output channels, but I can't imagine they would be able to 'combine' any resources as a 'sum' of proccessing power. Others can chime in more in that.

I would also comment on the above statement..about CPU resourses vs audio interface resources - one's, that have internal FX's, or some that even provide virtual instruments - and 'does it really matter'... while there is definately more available FX's & vietual instruments available to run inside if a computer, than in these capable audio interfaces, they are options afterall to remove loads off of any given computer DAW system. I don't think it's neccessarily a point of 'paying for resources' one wag or another, but what & how you want or need to things.

If it's more resources that are needed, then a more powerful computer can be built...or...systematically improve and expand upon what you already have. Either by hardware or software upgrades...and/or by add-on expansions....hybrid solutions to make what you 'already have' keep working for you. Like adding UAD cards, using external VSTi solutions...that is, those hardware units that are abke to load all your favorite VSTi instruments and run it from your DAW. Or, in my case I'm putting together a multiple computer system set up, master & slave computers...keeping & using everything I have, and expanding my capabilities...similar concept solutiobs above, all to farm out tasks, removing load off of your machine. Sure, if your DAW can handle everything 'you' need to do, then that's fine.

[auggybendoggy]

Steve, thanks for that. Yea, I'm not complaining about what we pay for Strophoid. I'm simplying saying, it seems logical to me to say that if Graphics is simply binary data being processed in order to produce faster, smoother and more colorful graphics, than it seems Audio cards could head in that same direction but with sound rather than visual.

Sure what's on the market might or might not have some of this. I'm simply wondering about the potential. It would be nice to be able to drop a large amount of money for an audio card that can handle everything today's DAW's can throw at it.

Instead what I usually read is that the best solution is to build another PC and slave it. Well how much does that cost? And isn't it easier to keep things simple?

I myself would rather pay more for a high end audio card that can handle TONS of data (like the big graphics cards do in comparison to smaller) than to pay for another computer to run VST's or do whatever it is the slave does.

I guess I'm really pondering why it isn't like this? Perhaps it is and my misunderstanding of audio cards as Jarno commented. Perhaps this is already going on and I simply don't know it. But then I would expect a response something along the lines of pointing out that the Delta 2496 is a weak card and what you really need is the Delta 2496 EXTREME EDITION - that can handle 75,000 voices. LOL.

[DG]

The Audio card doesn't do the processing. Your computer does. So having a super duper audio card makes no difference to performance at all. The divers will enable low latency and enhance performance, but the processing is still done by the computer.

DG

[Jarno]

I'm simplying saying, it seems logical to me to say that if Graphics is simply binary data being processed in order to produce faster, smoother and more colorful graphics, than it seems Audio cards could head in that same direction but with sound rather than visual.

Yes it's possible, but it's an expensive solution. Think about it. R&D costs of high-end graphics card should be similar to those of high-end audio processing card. Now, almost every personal computer has a graphics card, so manufacturer may sell 10 000 000 of those. How many audio cards they might sell? Well ... 10 000 if they are lucky. If R&D costs for both are $10 000 000 and manufacturing costs $50, what's the cost of cards: $51 for graphics card and $1050 for audio card, even as they both are technically equivalent units.

This keeps prices up... which keeps demand low ... which keeps prices high: chicken and egg.

Audio processing cards are not anything new. All DAWs in early '90s had those. But then CPUs got faster and made those kinds of solutions obsolete on anything else but most high-demanding systems. And you can see this by just researching what's available in the market: UAD. They are virtually only manufacturer nowadays making audio processing cards.

[Steve Fogal]

Yeah, these UAD cards are damn expensive. I had looked into adding UAD's to my system as well as other methods. But in the end I decided on building another machine to provide more power to with what I already have. Far more capable and far less expensive than a high end UAD.
I guess it depends on your criteria, how you are willing to work, how much you have to spend, your abilities and your know how...or your willingness & patience to learn to know how. I try to be somewhat conservative in my approach in using up resources..but could stand to learn a lot more in that area.

[Jarno]

But in the end I decided on building another machine to provide more power to with what I already have. Far more capable and far less expensive than a high end UAD.

And far more headache ... as we have witnessed here in this forum about your ordeal

I guess it depends on your criteria, how you are willing to work, how much you have to spend, your abilities and your know how...or your willingness & patience to learn to know how.

Exactly! This is wonder of modern DAW environment: You can have your desired collection of software and hardware which suits for your needs.

[Steve Fogal]

My headaches are far less than that of my desire ... or maybe I'm just the master of clusterphux

It was definately a learning experience to get it all working, but now I know 'how to' ...and with trusty old Aardvarks

[Steve Fogal]

@audiobendoggy
"Audio card passing tons of data" ... It's either that I'm not fully understanding, or it's you that's not fully understanding. If you're talking 'data' passing multiple audio & midi Ins/Outs, then you'll want an audio interface with lots of Ins/Outs and a protocol that allows the most reliable & fastest speeds. I'm guessing upper end Firewire, as USB as far as I know isn't as good as Firewire. If you're talking proccessing effects, then you'll want to look for those features. UAD isn't the only FX's solution...lot's of audio cards have their own internal reverb & delay etc so that you don't have to use up as much of your computers CPU & ram.

As has been said, there are many solutions available that can be used as an 'add-on' to your existing computer to come to the aid for resources. Maybe UAD is a solution for you, as I understand it works within your DAW environment, without seeming like an external & cumbersom or complicated solution. Again, I don't believe you're going to combine audio interfaces into a sum of combined power as such, though say, 2 cards that provide reverb & delay with give you reverb & delay on their own prospective channels.

As far as "cost of a 2nd computer" as in the case of my needs & solution. My just built, older spec quad core with 4 GB ram is costing me somewhere around maybe $600 with mostly used components off ebay ..not too bad when considering this same spec'd machine cost me over $2,000 when I bought those same components brand new around 5 or 6 years ago. A deal fir what I'm getting to impliment into my set up.

[knuckle47]

While a little off the path, I can tell you this. I bought a MOTU 896 HD 8 years ago for my audio interface. I think it is a fine unit for me and it has gotten so much better in the last 4 years. The reason has been that the drivers were always so unstable. Each update was worse than rhe previous one. They prevented so much advancement for me as a new user that it became so confusing almost to the point of abandoning it.

Fortunately I hung in there only because I had no time to start using the system so when a year passed and 3 driver updates, it started working better and better. Today it runs flawlessly albeit a legacy product now. If you asked me about the drivers and performance.....certainly!