Sound cards and mastering

Sound cards and mastering

Hi, I have the idea that the only time a high quality sound card
(Lynx etc.) matters is in the D/A conversion to analogue audio (for
monitoring)------and that while in the digital domain (for mixing and
mastering up to and including the .cda files), only the audio chip set
on the motherboard has any influence.

And, there are no audible differences between chipsets.

Am I correct on this?

thank you,

Don

Re: Sound cards and mastering

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:20:37 -0700 (PDT), donr <donr39ca@netscape . net >
wrote:

>Hi, I have the idea that the only time a high quality sound card
>(Lynx etc.) matters is in the D/A conversion to analogue audio (for
>monitoring)------and that while in the digital domain (for mixing and
>mastering up to and including the .cda files), only the audio chip set
>on the motherboard has any influence.
>
>And, there are no audible differences between chipsets.
>
>Am I correct on this?

The "sound card" may be an actual card, it may be the onboard chip.
Depends which you select. If one affects the sound (when selected) so
would the other one. In fact people who install a quality card
generally disable onboard sound in BIOS. As far as the system knows
the onboard chip doesn't exist.

I see no reason why either should affect the number-crunching that a
DAW performs while mixing or internally creating a WAV file (there's
not really any such thing as a CDA file - it's just how Windows shows
the track headers of an audio file)>

Re: Sound cards and mastering

donr <donr39ca@netscape . net > wrote:
>Hi, I have the idea that the only time a high quality sound card
>(Lynx etc.) matters is in the D/A conversion to analogue audio (for
>monitoring)------and that while in the digital domain (for mixing and
>mastering up to and including the .cda files), only the audio chip set
>on the motherboard has any influence.
>
>And, there are no audible differences between chipsets.
>
>Am I correct on this?

Yes, but isn't that enough?

Remember, you're using the converters in the sound card every time you get
anything in or out of the system.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Re: Sound cards and mastering

On 28 Apr 2008 13:41:13 -0400, kludge@panix . com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Remember, you're using the converters in the sound card every time you get
>anything in or out of the system.

Not if you're exporting a WAV file to be played on another system
(maybe via burning to CD). You won't know what you're burning if your
monitoring system is crap. But, in truth, the soundcard is the least
critical part of the system when you're just doing simple playback.

Re: Sound cards and mastering

"donr" wrote [from GoogleGroups]...
> Hi, I have the idea that the only time a high quality sound card
> (Lynx etc.) matters is in the D/A conversion to analogue audio (for
> monitoring)------

Correct.

> and that while in the digital domain (for mixing and
> mastering up to and including the .cda files), only the
> audio chip set on the motherboard has any influence.

No. The motherboard and/or audio chipset has NO
influence on the sound information. The quality of the
algorithms in the editing software are the only influence
on your sound files.

"CDA" is an invention of Microsoft to represent a track
on an audio CD. There is no such thing as a "CDA file".

> And, there are no audible differences between chipsets.

Certainly there are audible differences between "chipsets".
That is why high-end audio cards are generally preferred
to the kind they include on the motherboard. Plug-in
audio cards (whether $8 bargain-bin clones, or $800
high-end interfaces) use "chipsets". Some even use the
same chipsets as are used on motherboards. But the high-
end cards typically use a much better circuit layout and
implementation for higher analog performance.

Note that more people are completely filtering out all
messages posted via GoogleGroups and/or from gmail
accounts because Google is now such a major source
of spam.

Re: Sound cards and mastering

"donr" <donr39ca@netscape . net > wrote in message
news:30468e14-83a2-42a3-b710-7ebb77c3acca@56g2000hsm.googlegroups . com

> Hi, I have the idea that the only time a high quality
> sound card (Lynx etc.) matters is in the D/A conversion
> to analogue audio (for monitoring)

Or in the A/D conversion for recording.

> and that while in
> the digital domain (for mixing and mastering up to and
> including the .cda files), only the audio chip set on the
> motherboard has any influence.

The audio chip set on the motherboard has no effect on audio that is already
in the digital domain, except indirectly. If you use the chipset on the
motherboard for monitoring and it is colored, then you will tend to impose
the inverse of that coloration on your work.

> And, there are no audible differences between chipsets.

If wishes were fishes.

The motherboard chipset sees audio data in the digital domain like any other
data. If a motherboard chipset unintionally changed data, then it will
likely pretty quickly change data of a special kind - data that is also
program files that the computer is running. Change program files being
executed even by an iota, and the machine comes to a halt in no time.

Motherboard audio interfaces are sometimes partially implemented in the CPU
and I/O support chips, AKA the motherboard chipset. The could potentially
include sample rate conversion which can potentially have audible effects.
Again the functions most directly affected would be recording and monitoring
using the on-board audio interface.

Another area of audible differences are common severe artifacts like buzzes,
clicks, and drop-outs. These can be caused by interactions between the
motherboard chipset and say the video interface, which may also be part of
the motherboard chipset.

Re: Sound cards and mastering

donr wrote:
> Hi, I have the idea that the only time a high quality sound card
> (Lynx etc.) matters is in the D/A conversion to analogue audio (for
> monitoring)------and that while in the digital domain (for mixing and
> mastering up to and including the .cda files), only the audio chip set
> on the motherboard has any influence.
>
> And, there are no audible differences between chipsets.
>
> Am I correct on this?
>
> thank you,
>
> Don


I think that your misunderstanding has been misunderstood.
Others have thought that when you say 'audio chip set on the motherboard,
that you were talking about an on board sound card. My belief is
that you are under the impression that there is a special audio
chip set that does the number crunching in an audio application.
While such processors (DSP's) do exist, in your case the main
CPU of the computer is responsible for the audio crunching, and
all other information processing in the computer. You are right
then, that they all 'sound the same', as the only important
variable here is the speed at which the CPU is able to process
the audio. Monitor quality will be affected by the quality of
the sound card, but above all, the crucial quality point here is
that of getting an analog signal into the computer. This is
even more critical when using a microphone. If you are getting
your sounds into the computer in some other way, then a soundblaster
might suit you. If you want to generate music or vocals and get
those into the computer, then you can begin the life long pursuit
of microphones and preamps that will give you a noise free signal
that sounds the way you like.

** Posted from * w w w .teranews . com **

Re: Sound cards and mastering

donr wrote:
> Hi, I have the idea that the only time a high quality sound card
> (Lynx etc.) matters is in the D/A conversion to analogue audio (for
> monitoring)

That's important, but you monitor all the time. If you don't, then you
don't know what your recordings actually sound like. And if you have
poor quality monitoring when mixing, then your mixes won't sound good
everywhere. A good D/A converter isn't as critical as a good loudspeaker
in an acoustically good room, but when you have good monitoring, you can
hear the difference between a good converter and a mediocre one.

And then there's the A/D converter, which sets the sound quality beyond
which it can be no better no matter what you do.

I suppose that if all you do is gather sounds and then hand them to
someone else to do something with, you don't need very good equipment,
but what you get back is a function of what you put in.

> and that while in the digital domain (for mixing and
> mastering up to and including the .cda files), only the audio chip set
> on the motherboard has any influence.
> And, there are no audible differences between chipsets.
> Am I correct on this?

Uh . . no.

Now, what's your REAL question? Do you want to know if you can do CD
quality work with a $25 sound card if you have your CD mastered
professionally? Sure you can. But you have to be good - just as good as
if you had top quality A/D and D/A converters.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
(mriv...@d-and-d . com )