What are some specific shortcomings of built-in computer audio?
muzician21
serious recording or production work is because...
Laurence Payne
Actually Line In and Line Out of today's onboard audio is not bad
quality at all. If the job was simple recording through Line In to a
44.1KHz wav I wouldn't be too upset to have to use it on a desktop
machine. Some laptops are noisy. If you find one that isn't, the
same applies.
Mark
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:25:40 -0800 (PST), muzician21
>
> >The reason you would never use a computer mobo's onboard audio to do
> >serious recording or production work is because...
>
> Actually Line In and Line Out of today's onboard audio is not bad
> quality at all. If the job was simple recording through Line In to a
> 44.1KHz wav I wouldn't be too upset to have to use it on a desktop
> machine. Some laptops are noisy. If you find one that isn't, the
> same applies.
you can easily check the noise floor and frequency response
yourself...
in fact you should do that for any new piece of equipment you want to
use for serious recording, computer or otherwise..
Mark
Mike Rivers
> The reason you would never use a computer mobo's onboard audio to do
> serious recording or production work is because...
You can buy something that sounds considerably better for relatively little
money. You may not hear an improvement depending on what other gear
you have, what you're recording, what you're mixing on, or how good an
engineer you are, but at least you won't have something very fundamental
standing in your way of doing a better job.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson
Scott Dorsey
muzician21 <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The reason you would never use a computer mobo's onboard audio to do
>serious recording or production work is because...
Umm... it's noisy and distorted? It has nonstandard levels? It can't
reliably drive full level into a 600ohm load? It's not balanced? There
are only two channels?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Arny Krueger
news:hi4ssk$8gc$1...@panix2.panix.com
> In article
> <3d5451e4-029c-49b2...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> muzician21 <muzic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The reason you would never use a computer mobo's onboard
>> audio to do serious recording or production work is
>> because...
> Umm... it's noisy and distorted?
A fraily recent onboard audio interface measured
0.0024 THD, 87.4 dB dynamic range, Noise -87.7 dB
> It has nonstandard levels?
Close enough to standard -10 dB levels to pass.
> It can't reliably drive full level into a 600ohm load?
Actually, 16-32 ohm loads are typically driven quiet cheerfully.
> It's not balanced?
Direct hit number 1
> There are only two channels?
Nobody ever stopped using analog tape even though it was only 2 channels,
did they?
PStamler
> Nobody ever stopped using analog tape even though it was only 2 channels,
> did they?
Or three or four or eight or twelve or sixteen or twenty-four...
Peace,
Paul
Les Cargill
> The reason you would never use a computer mobo's onboard audio to do
> serious recording or production work is because...
>
Noise. If there's no digital hash in it,
you are good to go.
I lost the pan button on my 'soundcard' ( a
Fostex VF16 connnected via Lightpipe ) so I
frequently use the Line Out from the onboard now
to get stereo.
--
Les Cargill
Cyberserf
> The reason you would never use a computer mobo's onboard audio to do
> serious recording or production work is because...
My beef with most onboard cards would be the AD/DA conversion and word
clock issues...Of course, some are better than others...so YMMV, CS
Peter Larsen
> The reason you would never use a computer mobo's onboard audio to do
> serious recording or production work is because...
Never is an inappropiate word in this context. An existing recording is
always better than a recording that does not exist, I would certainly use it
if it is the option that is available and works, having to use it would not
be a reason not to record, but it would not be the first choice.
The main issue is to avoid clipping the input, back when I used the K7S5A on
board audio for the occasional recreational recording of a broadcast concert
the SN-ratio of the card was 80+, sound was slightly boring but a lot less
edgy than some DAT recorders AD conversion. Certainly not the first choice,
but if you had to you could.
It is the same question as whether you could use a stock A77 for serious
reording work. The answer then - as now - would be that it would be
preferable to use a machine that had the full "swedish Radio & Television
rebuild and mod done on it", or at least had the input card physically
removed, but if you had to, you could, as long as you took care not to clip
the inputs.
Kind regards
Peter Larsen
Mike Rivers
> Actually Line In and Line Out of today's onboard audio is not bad
> quality at all.
I agree that the audio isn't that bad, but the connectors are. Every
motherboard
audio interface uses mini jacks, and they need to be handled carefully
to assure
that they make reliable contact and don't get pulled out accidentally.
In addition, there seems to be inconsistency in how levels (mic/line),
stereo/mono
routing, and mic power are handled, and it's never documented. The careful,
risk-taking user must figure this out himself.
Laurence Payne
obnoxious over at uk.rec.audio? Probably a Bob Morein wannabee. But
you might want to pop in and put things right.
Arny Krueger
news:o83qk51g86djddgn1...@4ax.com
No problem - he's giving what he gets over there from someone who is abusing
your name, Laurence . As long as he keeps up the good work I'm not going to
do anything to stop him. But nice try at polluting RAP with your garbage
from another group. :-(
Laurence Payne
wrote:
No, he's mouthing off at a lot of people, not just me, in a most
un-Christian manner. So we know it can't be you!