My tastes in audio slowly but irreversibly migrate out of the “common audiophile sense”. 

Years ago I met some people form NY and Chicago, the former classical radio-station employees, the people with encyclopedic knowledge and understanding of music and the people with a mind-boggling collection of recorded FM broadcasts form the entier world that never ever were released or become available. Over the years I have purchased from them CD copiers of some of their tapes and they become my favorite CDs that I play when I want to listen the real music.

Couple years ago I paid attention that my local Clark Johnson, despite owing a 3-floor home filed with LPs and 78s, do not even have a playback to listen all his staff but prefer to spend most of his listening time with FM radio. Clark, among my audio people is kind of “strange person” as I hardly find any common grounds to talk with him about audio and some of his audio thoughts I do not take seriously. However, I do not think that I even had in my listening room more interesting, evolved and sophisticated music listener then Clark and it is always superbly educational to listen music with him. 

So, my FM broadcast that I was buying, the Clark's examples and few other thing moved me to pay very close attention to the phenomenal FM classical radio stations that we are lucky to have in Boston and to become thier avis follower. One after another, 5  "good" tuners went through my room and gave me some wonderful experiences.... but the recent sucker really was the straw that really broke the camel’s back.

I did not buy CDs or LPs since then. Today, I clearly see myself in future as the person who has no analog or digital installation but only my Macondo Acoustic System, pair of the Super Melquiadeses and a proper  tuner. The thousands dollars that spent in past buying music I would rather, with a great pleasure donate to my local classical FM radio station, and it would be all that I ever need. Do not make any mistake thinking that it would be consider "downgrading" of my audio demands in any way. I still have very serious and very demanding and very evolve audio objectives, the objectives that so far only FM broadcast could fulfill. Stop by in my listening room during an interesting FM broadcast and I will demonstrate you sound that you hardly hear from any audio-minded installation….

Anyhow,

Here are the things that I'm contemplating now. The broadcast quality is superb and many performances that I'm hearing I would like to record. For instance, the last night’s broadcast of the San Francisco Symphony under Herbert Blomstedt playing the Bruckner’s No. 4 was something that I would like to listen again. However, what kind of recording media would be able to preserve that magic of the FM broadcast?

I my past I had the Nakamichi CR-7A and recorded on a good metal tape it did a fantastic job; I still have many of this tapes. So, probably the CR-7A or Dragon would be the obvious choose, but are any alternatives available? Some people propose that the audio recording on Sony SuperBetta professional machine might deliver way more superiors result then Nak’s cassettes. I might also go for a good reel-to-reel machine. The new blank reel-to-reel tapes are being manufactured and the new heads are available, so why not? Perhaps some kind of DAT of hard drive-based digital format might be used? I really do not know and frankly speaking I would like do not try all of them.

Can some of you share your experience with recording media and suggest what from your prospective might be able to handle the “size” and the “weigh” of the FM broadcasts?

Bud wrote:

My first choice would be a Sony SACD recorder with storage in SACD format. Quite expensive, but I would not use an expensive Sony playback device. Their early models (still available new on ebay) were designed to show how much better than regular CD the SACD format was. Means they really spent some time perfecting the circuits for SACD and then did a terrible job for CD's. My favorite is the DVP-NS755v for about $200. All of the tape formats have drawbacks. Even a Nak has trouble with full orchestral performances. Not the signal recording but the print through problems. I have NAK tapes that are 15 years old and are almost unlistenable, even though they were recorded on 3M metafine tape. Reel to Reel is still the best format but the bulkiness and hassle of dealing with such a large format and the physical alignment wandering issues are always a concern. Having said that, I am currently rebuilding an Akai Model 8, using a motor platten from the last of that series that incorporates outer reel motors for tension, also am installing Sony 1/4 and 1/2 track heads, no recording ability, and refurbishing the tube preamp / amps into preamp only devices. All to play Barclay Crocker tapes of some of the finest musical evants ever recorded. But, I will be unable to record at all. I have limited experiance with DAT but found the two I tried to be full of noise and jitter issues. These were made by Adat and Teac so perhaps there are others, but their PCM format is still early days red book and so of suspect ability. A full size computer box using PCI buss Creative audio cards, NERO software, SCSI based Yamaha CD burner, etc. might just be the best way. I know people who can build incredible front ends for input control of signal, although, a very good transformer volume control from friend Thorstens highly regarded S&B people might be best. Then you could open a not for profit subscription service, for equitment maintenance and media / time costs only, and provide copies to some of the goodsound club "inner sanctum" members and then we who have no access to live, FM broadcasts could join in your joy.......... yikes ..duck and run!!!! Bud

Actually what you are saing is very much relates with you I feel. My NaK CR7 was wonderful but I would in a way agree that it chocked with large orchestral peaces. I could not say more precisely as it was many years back when my taste and demand were way off but since you mention it I think I could relate to it, as I have the same subjective reminiscences.  Also, I remember that in 1998 or something like this when the first Sony SACD machines were only about to heat the market I was given a demo of SACD played directly form the original hard-drive and recorded via the original “conceptual” DSD AD-DA processors. It was phenomenal and it was the only time when I heard a good performing DSD. Of course since then no one make good DSD converters…. And the SACD as it und up turn out to be a crap. Still, I’m sure that even if I dig the original pro DSD processor then, although it might do good sound, but I do not know if it will be able to be transparent to something that distinct my FM form my LP ….

It is interesting: I spoke today with some people and I do VERY seriously consider now the idea of a high quality digital storage now. If to play it form a hard drive without and CDs and quality a good quality AD/DA then it might be very different then what we usually expect from CD format. In the good side it will have unlimited storage and will not force me to change 12 reels during recording of one opera broadcast. It dose sounds very interesting… Any advise for any AD converted that I might try?

Well, I do not think that I would be able to recode it to CD witch appropriate level of quality but it would be interesting to be able to load it to hard drive and to see if FM level sound still might survive on HD. Also I would be able to writhe a few line of code and be able to send email to my computer asking him to record a program that I might like. Still, it all will contingent upon how acceptable quality I will be able to get out of hard drive.

For the same of conceptual excrement, to learn if it is theoretically possible to A/D FM and do not kill music I will need to try some better DA converter playing it back via my Bidat (I do not think any better converters exist out there). I am looking to borrow and to try something like Euphonix’s Pacific Microsonics, or Prism Sound Dream, or Lavry Engineering (former DB Technology), Weiss or in the worst case the newest top of the line Apogees. They kind of on expansive side but they do the job. If they will be able to handle the job then will well mitigate the efforts to quality further on. If they fail then…I will go back to the misery of the analog masochism….

Yes, it would be wonderful to share with you all guys what a good "live" broadcast dose with Milqed Makondo… but they… you juts 8 hours away… I do not think that any slinky CD will be able to do justice….

Rgs,
The caT

jtavan wrote:

It looks like you're looking at the right brands for ADC. It seems likely to me that getting proper A/D conversion is as hard as or harder than getting proper D/A conversion. I'm currently shopping for a good A/D converter for a number of purposes, and those are supposedly the cream of the crop. I'd add to your list (at least to audition) the new Lynx Studio Aurora line, probably down near the Apogee units. As the Prism and Pacific Microsonics are out of my budget, that's what I'm looking at. I'm trying to find someone willing to let me demo it before shelling out the money. In any case, please do keep us posted as to your progress in this matter.

Although I am a software engineer, on software writer site, but believe me or not I ma completely ignorant in that digital audio things. None of my machines that I ever used had any sound card in them; at least I never used thus cards…

The first thing that I need to find out if a digital stream from my DAC might be stored on computer’s hard drive in none-compressed format and if it might be then playable back to my DAC. I need for this case an interface with digital I/O and probably I will go for an optical I/O, despite that I do not like the optical interface but I do not what to bring the computer dirty ground to my system. If the computer base mass storage will be able perform OK then I will be thinking about a good external converter. No mater ho simple the first parts but still there are very many questions and variables that should be result and assessed. Will the optical drive be sufficient enough, how good the I/O interface might be, will be a different in sound if the file will be pulled from a network mass storage vs the local drive. What kind optimization should be done to the PS in order to “optimize” it, how to power the Pc… and many-many others

Let presume that the first part will be successful then here is what I think about the A/D. If to presume that the quality of the company A/D has any relation to the company D/A (I presume that it is the case) then what do I have practically available? Pacific Microsonics would be out of my budget as well but there is an interesting glitch with it. After the Pacific Microsonics it looks like Keith Johnson designed his Spectral SDR-2000 Professional D/A processor. I had this unit 5 years ago for a few days in my home and I was not impressed. This init did an absolutely feminine everything and deliver the bass that was unmatchable but it was very much not musical unit. It cost a little under 10K and I decided do not keep it. It was like all Spectrals too anal-retentive and very much alike to anything else the professor Johnson even did. I know that many top notch studios do use the Pacific DACs but….. I need more musical results. It is very possible that the Pacific DAC will be nothing like the SDR-2000 DAC but to spent a lot of efforts to find this ADC, to pay a huge sum of money and to have a result the I can’t assess it might be too painful. I do have a local guy with the Pacific recording studio and I might have a demonstration but his it quite pricey and I do not think that I will be wiling to pay his price range for this DAC.

I have a little knowledge about the Prism Sound Dream. Some top of the world studios use them a, love them and I have a sores to borrow them. I do not know, perhaps I will try it… Also, I have local guy who has the tope of the line Apogees and he will be happy to lend me those units to try. I will looks also at your Lynx Studio Aurora line, although I never heard bout them.

The Switzerland Weiss is tricky. A lot of very top flying studios use them, including most England, DG and EMI. I heard the DG did with Weiss thier “Originals” ….  It might be OK but my problem that that I am well familiar with Weiss DAC. It is very good DAC, I mean relay good, way more interesting then all out audiophile-proved garbage but … I never bought it….  To me Weiss has a seatrain syntactism at HF, very pleasant, very articulate and very attractive but this syntactism (or artificiality) do not exist of real music. To me the Weiss’s HF is a smell of autumn burned leaves during a cold November morning… It has an attractive “yellowness” but should will you do with it if you play “spring” or “summer”. Still, I do not know if this ADC has the same problems….

What is left? The Lavry Engineering. There is a “problem” with them: is LOVE thier DAC. Approximately 5-4 years ago I had for a day or two their DB Technology DA-924 and it was the only DAC that I ever liked. A beautiful machine with a fanatic quality of sound and very musical at the same time. If their ADC will be the same then it will be defiantly it. Thier ADC cost somewhere around $9-8K and if I would be able to get it for a half price perhaps used then it will be quite nice. I have a very good feeling about this company…

There is another ways… There are recently a quite few PC recording devises that might turn out to be OK. Even the Lavry Engineering makes $300 recording ADC for PC that they state if very good. (Optimized for microphones). In addition there are very many similar products within a price range $1-$2K that “might” deliver an acceptable result. Most of them do 24 bit and many other ran form DC batteries, that is not necessary sucks.

So, I feel I will be doing some listening very soon… if no one would give me a Lavry Engineering AD processor for Hanukah…

To be continue....
Romy the Cat

Thanks, jtavan.

It was educational. I made some first steps already. I made a slow 233MHz (and presumable it would have lower noise with lower speed) machine with no fans, and a large passive radiator on SPU. Formatted it and loaded Win2K Pro St4. Shut down all unnecessary services. I was looking for a card with SPDIF (RCA and optical) in and out and was not able to find any without the dummy multimedia options, Dolby, DTS and 65433 channel/54 subwoofers. :-) Considering that I need only the optical I/O bypassing everything else then why do I need anything else?

Eventually, in my local pro audio shop I found a very reasonably priced card. It was by Creative Professional, 24/96. It called E-MU 0404, has optical and RCA in and out and it looks like it was not made to please the “gaming” community.

http://www.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=237&subcategory=239&product=10498&nav=2

It is juts $100 and it comes with a bundle of Steinberg's software, including the Wavelab. Since it is juts a first sound card the I even bought in my live I have no idea how good it is bad it is and I figured then the less it will have bult on itself the better it will be, it is had no DSP engine and no onboard DAC/ADC it would be even better…

Anyhow, I tried to load the stream from my transport directly into the Wavelab via my favorite coaxial digital cable. The wile I made was PCM, uncompressed 16/44. When I played it back form my PS’s hard drive, I was kind of surprised as I expected much-much more unpleasant result. To my astonishment the sound was very similar with what I was getting form my transport. I did anticipate an immediate revolting reaction but it was very opposite – I had no reaction at all. I would not finalize my observations as this point as I still have to learn how to use all this digital gismos and optimize them. Also, the electrical was very bad today in Boston and the general sound was not at the point what I would be able to say anything more defiantly.

What I did learned is the I need a smalls flat monitor with touch-screen as I can locate a silent computer hear my audio in my room but I will not be able to tolerate any keywords or mice…

To be continue
The caT

PS: Interesting that the software that the card comes with has any ability to bypass the DSP engine by mapping the inputs/outputs. The fan part the when I go into the DSP engine and explicitly shot shut down ALL activities and then rout the digital streams in the DSP engine, without doing anything in the engine then the sound instantaneously go to hell and begin to sound like the playbacks of those cretins who use digital crossovers with this horns. Very-very recognizable!

jtavan wrote:

I would be interested to hear your reaction to the same CD ripped properly on a CD-ROM drive rather than recorded from SPDIF stream. If your transport is VERY good, they should be equivalent... but on damaged discs, or with bad transports, the error-corrected, ripped CD should be much better. It's nice to be able to re-read potentially-damaged sectors.

I did not make those experiments. Defiantly I will, though to load the digital already music to PC is not what I shoot for. The only interest that I do have is to preserve my FM broadcasts. Even the back up the LPs to digital does not really interest me as I laws can play those LPs on my analog gear if I wish to. Still, form my former excrements I remembers that computer CD-ROMs were horrible transports compare to my TL0.  I tried in past a number stand-alone CD burners: Alesis Masterlink ML-9600, Sony W66, Denon 1050, Tascam RW750, Fostex CR300, HHB CDR830 looking for away to be able to burn CD with acceptable quality. None of them recorded good as far as I concern but there was also a side affect. All these units had direct digital audio stream out and I did try all of them to use as a transport feeding my DAC. It turned out that none of them could even remotely compete with my dedicated audio transport. All of them had no bass compare to TL0 and were loosing all articulation from music, converting it juts in a gray string of sounds. For instance the Masterlink paling a CD sounded like: 1234567890 vs. the TL0 playing the same CD sounded like: 1234567890. Actually the real misery of them would be hard to describe but I completely revolted regarding what the CD burners did as the transports. Would the CD-ROM drives of PS read the disc in the same way as the “professional” CD burners I do not know…

jtavan wrote:

As for a small flat monitor/touchscreen, I have a Viewsonic Airpanel, which is a Microsoft RDP client with wireless 802.11b in a 10" touchscreen tablet. It's pretty interesting, but I don't use it as I'm currently using the squeezebox with its IR remote control. It's not a perfect product, but it might be what you're looking for. If you're interested in a trade/purchase, please contact me off-thread.

Yes, I have looked at this screed before and considered it and a few similar to it. I still do not know if I need it, as I do not know with what configuration I might end up to. The Squeezebox do sounds interesting but it is one one-way (direction) solution. The biggest problem as that I do not have the dedicated ADC that would be sitting right next to the analog outputs of my tuner. I less care about the length of the D-cables… It might me near-located PS or I might stick a dedicated box in my server room (~40 feet of cable away, that would not be a big deal, if I go optical, will it?) As an alternative I consider to use a small laptop with pro PCMCIA sound card. Thos cards are ~$500-$600 and have an external connection box that might sit right along with the rest of my audio equipment. When the music is paling then it will be useful to use a wirelessly connected full-futured laptop to control it. When the D-playback is not used then the laptop sent in suspended mode and all D-system along with its “presumed” D-noise and the Laptop’s acoustic noise go to sleep.  Still I do not have any final sense of direction as I would like also to be able to with some like of web service that would allow me to tunnel my network and to activate or schedule the recoding ceremony remotely. I have to think about it more…

jtavan wrote:

That sound card sounds like a pretty basic audio device, simple cheap coax transmitter on a card with a useless DSP. I have a MAudio Audiophil 2496 here that is similar. As long as you can use the mixer to bypass the processing, it's fine. But I think what you're really looking for is more along the lines of the Lynx Studio AES16 (16 channels of AES/EBU digital I/O, wordclock I/O, nothing else).

I did not know about this card before and it was exactly way I was looking for and the Lynx card does look much more interesting. Still, as a test drive my current card would do…  Also, Jeremy, and I ma not kidding here: would it be possible that an expansive (let it sot a few thousand dollars) very good quality sound card might have on board a pair of very good performing A/D converters. Really, the Weiss and the Pacific Microsonics are essentially the computers… so why the very same processing that those good AD converts do might not be implement on the audio card? If some of them would do good sounding card then I do not mind to put this computer to a dedicated high quality PS.  I wonder if the digital companies do the coupled thousands dollars worth Sounds Cards, with good clock on board and high quality/implementation of the A/D processing algorithms, but without staffing them with 7.1 decoders, DVD-audio, TNX, DSO and the rest garbage then we might have a very “cool” solution that would not require any external cables and so on… Doe exist anything out there like this worth to try?

jtavan wrote:

I'm not ready to discard digital crossovers with horns quite yet - I think that the cretins do it Wrong, and that it may well be possible to do it Right. Still looking into that world - it's a complicated one.

Whatever the cretins do is DSP. I have a lot of reasons do not believe that it may be done Right in anyway, some of the reasons are technical and some “political” but all that one need it to listen ANY horn installation with D-crossovers. They are ALL fundamental laughable and I for year have rules that if a person juts mentions that he/she uses the D-crossovers or D-EQ then whatever else the person say becomes not important….

Hi Romy,

You wrote:
 Also, I remember that in 1998 or something like this when the first Sony SACD machines were only about to heat the market I was given a demo of SACD played directly form the original hard-drive and recorded via the original “conceptual” DSD AD-DA processors. It was phenomenal and it was the only time when I heard a good performing DSD. Of course since then no one make good DSD converters…. And the SACD as it und up turn out to be a crap. Still, I’m sure that even if I dig the original pro DSD processor then, although it might do good sound, but I do not know if it will be able to be transparent to something that distinct my FM form my LP ….

If it was an original DSD converter, was it a Sony or more likely Ed Meitner's? I wanted to use unprocessed DSD as a digital delay and was looking for converters some time ago. Being in Canada, I spoke with Ed about DSD. His A/D has the ability to be adjusted to be nicely linear. Other units may not be able to do it. But there is a "bit" of processing in programmable logic to get the DSD stream. Something I am not that thrilled about. Also, Ed strongly recommended against just low-pass filtering the output DSD to get audio out. This is exactly what some equipment modders do. If Ed's DSD equipment were not that expensive, I would love to try it and modify it.

On paper, the best computer PRO audio card is Lynx. Based on measurements, Lynx does something better than others. I have seen some tests of Creative cards and was not impressed. But computer is such a horrible environment, with horrible power supplies. So it is the last place I would want to put my converters into. But because it is the simplest and cheapest solution, that is what most people do. Lynx has an external rack converter unit for about $2k. It could be interesting. But I would look on any external unit only if it can accept an external reference clock and if it uses asynchronous data transfer for DAC (i.e. the external DAC is the master, uses its own or master clock and requests data from the PC when its input buffer is low). Right now the most external units have only 24/96 A/D while the internal cards go 24/192. I would definitely prefer 192k samples/s. Mind you, the converter performance goes down with higher sampling rates.

Cheaper PRO cards are M-Audio Audiophile 24/196 and ESI Juli@. I just bought Audiophile USB external unit for a PC based audio test measurement unit. It has only 24/96 A/D but we will see how it sounds.

There is something about FM radio. I even wondered what is the net processing done to the signal by the process of FM modulation, transmission, reception and demodulation. I have an intercom with FM radio built into a wall in the kitchen. I listen to it during dinner. One can get a very good feeling about the actual performance of the piece. Likely better than in a high end system. Maybe it is the single driver speaker in a nice enclosure in the wall between wooden studs and drywall. Who knows. No wonder that the FM was discontinued from this intercom - it was competing too much with high end systems. But listening to my Mac MR-67 is not bad either. I could visit Magnum Dynalab again considering that I used to work almost next door to them.

Regards,

TonyB

Jeremy, another few lead that I think might conceder.

Manly Labs has their 20-bit digital to analogue converter that uses the Pacific Microsonics processor inside. I was told that is available as the “street price” for ~$6K-$7K and it might be a “frugal version” of Pacific possessor. There are however tree things that makes me suspicious in this. First: I am not a big fan of HDCD. Second: I very skeptical with all this hi-fi paranoia tube output stage that Manly built in that unit. I did not see any “interesting” tube buffer and I feel defiantly that it would not be made as a commercial product from an Audio Asylum minded company. The third is probably my individual issues: I do not like Manly as a company and I do not like her personally. Their/her cheap “twist oriented”,  “friendly tough love” approach that is “optimized” to impress an average Stereophile subscriber is really turns me off. She personally and her entire company/products impress me as much as that girl from a small Western Pennsylvania village who suddenly designed to demonstrate me want from her point of view a Manhattan lesbian chic might look like. Also, Manly told me that he hate cats and as far as I concern the people who hate cats should be put to death… Anyhow, they all perhaps my semi-personal predicaments and you might find is worth to explore…

Another A/D option that is very promising is the Crane Song HEDD192. I heard that it is VERY different sonically and with the price tag of $3.5K it might be interesting to try…

TonyB wrote:

If it was an original DSD converter, was it a Sony or more likely Ed Meitner's? I wanted to use unprocessed DSD as a digital delay and was looking for converters some time ago. Being in Canada, I spoke with Ed about DSD. His A/D has the ability to be adjusted to be nicely linear. Other units may not be able to do it. But there is a "bit" of processing in programmable logic to get the DSD stream. Something I am not that thrilled about. Also, Ed strongly recommended against just low-pass filtering the output DSD to get audio out. This is exactly what some equipment modders do. If Ed's DSD equipment were not that expensive, I would love to try it and modify it.

Actually I spoke with some very much “deeply plugged” people who very closely monitored what Meitner did in the end of 90s and they informed me yeastoday that the Meitner's original DSD were be 4-bit processors and that it was very-very good. Since then as Meitner's begin to commercialize his DSD idea he converted it in single bit system called SACD and this new system, is in fact very primitive. I’m not quite sure what I juts said, but since I never ever heard any properly sounding SACD from a disk, nor I even head any properly recorded PCM layer on the SACD so I never consider the SACD worth any attention.

TonyB wrote:

There is something about FM radio. I even wondered what is the net processing done  to the signal by the process of FM modulation, transmission, reception and demodulation. I have an intercom with FM radio built into a wall in the kitchen. I listen to it during dinner. One can get a very good feeling about the actual performance of the piece. Likely better than in a high-end system. Maybe it is the single driver speaker in a nice enclosure in the wall between wooden studs and drywall. Who knows? No wonder that the FM was discontinued from this intercom - it was competing too much with high end systems. But listening to my Mac MR-67 is not bad either. I could visit Magnum Dynalab again considering that I used to work almost next door to them.

Yes, there is something about FM radio. Even it broadcasted only very compressed it still sound amassing…. However, do not visit Magnum Dynalab…. it will not help. I have thier units and they are not the real FM but the "Hi-Fi FM" with no real bass and no real "space"….

Further update….

Then, last nigh the electricity was quite all right and I run the native window uncompressed files via the digital output to my DAC. As I initially sent it was quite nice that pretty my prove to me the fact that it might be nice or even presumably “remarkably good” ….if is done properly. At this point I do not know what properly would be or might be but today I am wiling to try. First I did learn that I would need a very good external A/D processor.  Looking at the situation about the ADCs, knowing that it really takes time and patience to learn how to get the best out a given processor and knowing the I really would like to go on the road of endless ADC evaluation I decided to listen my native feline instincts and go with them. So, decided to buy a Lavry’s Gold AD122. This is the very first peace in audio that I decided to buy without actually listening it. First of all, I am not equipped at this point to audition it objectively and second there is no way for me to try it as the local dealer is semi-armature. Still, I have very-very good feeling about the DB technology products and it this ADC will be as good as this DAC then it will be a direct hit with the A/D processor.

Now, the biggest problem remains what digital I/O PC interface to use after the Lavry’s digital stream. Lavry has the digital balanced outputs, so what along the good sound cards have AES inputs.  As I learned two cards re in running for being better and have the AES/EBU? There is Lynx L22 and there is RME Digi96, and believe or not but there is an army of people who perform some sustom updated on this cards, I do not practically believe in it at this point….. Both of them around $700 and both or them have positive feedback.  There are some other contestants, the Prodif 88 for instance. Also according to the chart the  no analog aboard LYNX AES 16 is what I might need….

http://www.lynxstudio.de/enpages/compare.html

I relay do not know if I need those expansive cards and anyone who love them presumably comment about their AD/DA options that with my new Lavry ADC will be absolutely irrelevant. Will my cheap $100 card with XLR/RCA adaptor do the same if I load a digital stream directly to PC’s HD drive? Will the quality of the clock and thousands of other thing in those expansive cards still be matter? I do not know… Can I buy another not $700  care juts to have a AES/EBU I/O for my PC? If some one do then please advise me….

Still, I do not stop to consider to go for PCMCIA card with antennal box and run this entire thing from a laptop… Unfortunately no one who do the pro cards and whoever do impress me very little, not to mention that none of them do the AES/EBU. What I actual need would be the old RME Digi96 card, now discontinued, the card that had AES/EBU, no DSP on board, no mixing capacity, do analog section at all. It was $150 and had the rest within itself identical to what the today RME’s $700 card have.

Well, it will be fun to see what else is available there…. BTW, one more thing… if I go do 40”-50” of balanced d-cable than dose it quietly mater. Will the pro-shop level cable sufficient enough?

jtavan wrote:

As Tony points out, there are some digital cards with supposedly good converters in them.  The Lynx Studio LynxTwo or Lynx L22 cards are said to work well. But the computer IS a very noisy environment, and the idea of converters in it scares me. That being said, I'm told that the Lynx cards are very good and have enough shielding to keep noise out. I remain skeptical, having heard the amazing amount of noise in recordings made with my MAudio card in my fanless audiorackpc. As for cable lengths, 40' is fine with optical, and apparently even with AES/EBU balanced digital as the Lynx cards use. I don't think I would worry about it - much more elegant solution than having the computer sitting in the living room. I also found it interesting to read Lavry's white papers on sampling rates, and why he prefers 96kHz to 192kHz. I don't know if he's correct or not regarding bits of information available at the two rates, but it's worth looking in to, probably using low-level signals and inspecting resulting captures at the two sample rates.

I have a little difficulty to figure out if what you say would be applicable in my case. You see, as I understand that when you tell about your positive results with Lynx L22 you report that fact that it’s D/A processor delivers presumably better result then other cards. In may case I will NOT be using the Lynx’s D/A or A/D processing, so will I have any advantages doing for the Lynx’s cards?

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Romy the Cat wrote:

... I decided to listen my native feline instincts and go with them. So, decided to buy a Lavry’s Gold AD122. ....Now, the biggest problem remains what digital I/O PC interface to use after the Lavry’s digital stream. Lavry has the digital balanced outputs, so what along the good sound cards have AES inputs.  As I learned two cards re in running for being better and have the AES/EBU? Will my cheap $100 card with XLR/RCA adaptor do the same if I load a digital stream directly to PC’s HD drive? Will the quality of the clock and thousands of other thing in those expansive cards still be matter? I do not know… Can I buy another not $700  care juts to have a AES/EBU I/O for my PC? If some one do then please advise me…. Still, I do not stop to consider to go for PCMCIA card with antennal box and run this entire thing from a laptop… Unfortunately no one who do the pro cards and whoever do impress me very little, not to mention that none of them do the AES/EBU. What I actual need would be the old RME Digi96 card, now discontinued, the card that had AES/EBU, no DSP on board, no mixing capacity, do analog section at all. It was $150 and had the rest within itself identical to what the today RME’s $700 card have. Well, it will be fun to see what else is available there…. BTW, one more thing… if I go do 40”-50” of balanced d-cable than dose it quietly mater. Will the pro-shop level cable sufficient enough?

TonyB wrote:

If the PC is a master sending the data (and generating the clock), I would not use it. That is why I would go for one of the PRO (expensive, e.g. Lynx AES 16) cards which can accept master clock when sending data. Can your Bidat generate or accept master clock?

My Larvy ADC can send out clock reference data via a different interconnect. I might get one of these Lynx AES 16 and synchronize the Larvy internal clock with the sound card clock. How important it is and if it would be generally necessary I do not know. As far as publishing data from PC into Bidat if might be different that might not need any synchronizing. Bidat runs it own cClok algorithm that recognizes the clack mark right inside the main digital stream. After Bidat get it is tune own clock to the clock of the source. Once agene, how it all actually affects Sound I have no slightest idea.

TonyB wrote:

but it re-samples the data received from PC in its internal DSPs.

I begin to panic what I hear the DSP word… :-)

TonyB wrote:

If you're sure you're not going to do the DA or AD conversion in the card, then the AES16 is all you need. However, if you might want to try just using the AD conversion on the cards (which might be just fine, hard to say without trying), then you'll want the L22 or Two model which have converters on board. They won't get in the way of digital use, and will let you experiment with using the card itself as ADC. Though I'd be surprised if it were as good as an external box, I would say it's worth a try. The AES16 basically just gives you more channels of digital for your dollar - but you only need two channels.

Still, the AES16 is even more expansive then L22 but the question still reminds if I would need a “good” card of I do juts digital in and out. Hantra uses SPDIF output right on motherboard and he believes that it is not bad. So, if I use any simple bypass supported soundcard, for instance the one with SPDIF that I have now, and terminate the cable form Larvy DAC with SPDIF connector instead of the AES then will it be the same. The reason why I am interested about it is not that would like to save myself $700 (that would not hurt) but because I would like to found out some logic or reasoning behind all of it.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

jtavan wrote:

I don't know of that many motherboards with on-board SPDIF _input_, most just have output (and not terribly good output at that). The AES16 and the L22 are within $50 of each other, with the AES16 usually being cheaper. The logic behind buying the professional card is that you get AES/EBU balanced digital rather than SPDIF, and you get the ability to use an external wordclock. They do seem pretty expensive for what they are, though. You don't need 16 channels, but I don't know of a good and cheaper digital-only card. All DACs without wordclock input use some sort of clock-recovery circuitry, as AES/EBU and SPDIF are self-clocked protocols and the DAC chip wants to receive a clocked I2S signal. It's easier to do this well if you have clock sync between the sending and receiving devices.

The things are clearing up now, thanks everyone for your help. If after I build this FM grabbing machine I get Sound that I will be pleased then I promise to send some “interesting” recording of my FM broadcasts. Or perhaps I will put then on my file server and let you guys to grab the uncompressed files….

Rgs,
The caT

Guys, a few more questions that I can’t understand: (or understand it wrong)

The Lynx AES16 card has only AES/EBU inputs and output and no analog in or out. So presumably, the made a good pro card that would be only AES/EBU infract for PC and despite that it has an excessive amount of channels for my propose still it looks like what I need. However, there is catch in this card.

The specification for this card said that all channels are transformer coupled…. probably it is OK, I do not know.  Also, the data routing in this card take place by digital integrated digital console that they clams is “hardware based”… Now the interesting thing… “The AES16 model offers eight channels of mastering quality sample rate conversion”. Does the sample rate conversion presumes the signal processing up or down, or actually the DSP? Is it possible to bypass the sample rate conversion on a given input bay?  

Hantra, a question to you and with your L22 card… Dos your card allows to bypass, or to hard-patch the inputs and to avoid to perform any manipulations? I have seen the screen-shots on the Lynx L22 and then in tier parching interface has volume control for each channel. Those thighs really scare me because as soon a digital volume control introduced to the signal then the signal and this card defeat any reasonable purpose. So, could L22 route the inputs without exposing the stream to any bytes screwing functionalities...

Rgs,
Romy the caT

OK, it now looks like my dive in the world of PC is over and I pretty much know where I am staying. A well of so ago I was completely ignorant about the subject but now I could at least to understand what the common buzz-worlds means and able to ask more or less related questions. I still have no practical experience with the field and do not necessary know what the relation between those buzz-worlds and actual Sound now, based on collective “somebody’s else experience” I kind of understand what I am trying to do. Since I was bothering people with all of it I would like to compile my thought that I end up with.

First all of I would like to express gratitude to all whoa assist me and advised me: the contributors of this site, the numerous people who send me direct emails, the recording engineers and technicians, the application engineers designers at some manufacturing houses and some dealers who believe me or not turned out be quite knowledgeable.

The very interesting aspect of my PC’s Audio exploration was a reassuring from very many people (with different credentials) that the recording sound to PC might yield very-very good result if it done properly. I still do not know how their definition of “very-very good result” might correlate with my own definition of “good result” but you and myself will learn about it in a few weeks. Also, I would like to point out that the my objectives of “success” of this entire experiment is not just get of PC “very-very good Sound” but to be able to preserve this “magic” of FM broadcasts that I fell might be more completed…. Anyhow, I have finish the “collect data” stage regarding this subject; the entire PC system is done and being assembled and anticipate it will take a few weeks (or more) to learn how to get out of it Sound that it might be capable of. Then it will be assessed and reported.

Here are some summarizing observations…

The PC:  Low processor speed, SCSI hard drives at 10,000 RPM… still looking for an old CD burner that will be able to writhe 1X speed. I have some people who telling me that it IS possible to burn a superb quality CDs and they share some their experiences how it should be done. I am very skeptical that I will be able to do it BUT I have heard their custom CD and I do confirm that their results were way ahead of any other custom CDs that I heard. Some radical people suggest building own non-switching PS for the recording/storing PC but I do not go for it at this point. The PC has WaveStudio, EAC and the newest Nero Recording Programs. The Sound Card… All my expirations ended up with practically unanimous recommendations of Lynx products.  The chose went for Lynx AES16 card as a better AES/EBU interface. As it turn out that Lynx 22 does not have as sophisticated output stage as AES16 and runs a previous, jitterier generation of Lynx’s outs. Also, the AES16 has transformers coupled outputs the make the entire card with more menacing ground to the rest of my systems. (Still I glad that I did not go optical and I initial though I would need). Also, the AES16 has a lot of advantages over the AES16-SRC as it has no module that allows perform the sample rate conversion.  In the end there are people who would build custom XLR cable sets (replacement for the stock CBL-AES1604) extending it as long as I wish. The AES16 can perfectly fine to run a quite long cubes. Use the SPIDIF input with this card is perfectly kosher thing to do but many people explicitly rejected ideas to use anything then AES/EBU at out stage of this card. Thanks God the BiDat runs AES/EBU and … I hope it will be up to the task…. The DAC as I told was Lavry’s Gold AD122 MKII. People pretty much shared between Prism, Pacific and Lavry but I have personal experiences with Lavrys and his concept that using his Gold line ADC and DAC should produce no other resent then a simple straight wire do sound very impressive, although quite bogus. Also, and it is very important for me… it would be possible to get rid of that miserable gold Lavry’s front plate… ;-)

In the end it would be VERY VERY cool if the PC recoding turn out to be sufficient enough to record the FM broadcast. In addition, it tunes out to be way less expensive then I thought it would be. I was thinking that the project might cost around $15K but it turn out to be way less expansive. Anyhow, I do not what to sound that the project is over, as I have no reference points about the Sound I will get out of this. However, I have no further frustrations of questions at this point and all that I need is to make it to work. I will report the results….

Rgs,
Romy the caT

PS: Dan Lavry: Truth in Tone Coloring