Help needed - select an Audio cards with 4 input channels

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I need an PCI audio card with 4 input channels for recording in a PC
with windows 2000/XP.

The card should be able to produce standard PCM data so it can be recorded
into WAV files - each channel into a separate file.

The card should also detect silence.

Since the input source is of low quality I do not need a high quality card.

Can you recommend of such a card?

Thanks,
Ury.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <e4e56276.0409050337.22fc5d98@posting.google.com> ujamshy@yahoo.com writes:

> I need an PCI audio card with 4 input channels for recording in a PC
> with windows 2000/XP.
>
> The card should be able to produce standard PCM data so it can be recorded
> into WAV files - each channel into a separate file.

That's easy. There are lots. Look at M-Audio for an assortment of
cards in various physical and interface configurations.

> The card should also detect silence.

That's hard, or at least somewhat obscure, and I doubt that you'll
find it as a function of hardware. I'm guessing by this that you want
it to stop recording when the input has been silent for a certain
period of time and start recording again when there's something coming
into it. Generally that would be a software function, and I'll bet
there are some inexpensive or even free tools that will do that. I'm
not aware of this function in any of the "pro audio" recording
software that most of us around here use.

> Since the input source is of low quality I do not need a high quality card.

You really don't have much choice when it comes to quality. They're
all pretty good these days once you get out of the "cheap sound card"
range, which you'll have to do in order to get four channels.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1094393063k@trad...
> You really don't have much choice when it comes to quality. They're
> all pretty good these days once you get out of the "cheap sound card"
> range, which you'll have to do in order to get four channels.

Not necessarily, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz does 4 channel recording.
See my post on rec.audio.tech for more details.

TonyP.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <413bfba0$0$16193$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> TonyP@optus.net.com.au writes:

> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1094393063k@trad...
> > You really don't have much choice when it comes to quality. They're
> > all pretty good these days once you get out of the "cheap sound card"
> > range, which you'll have to do in order to get four channels.
>
> Not necessarily, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz does 4 channel recording.
> See my post on rec.audio.tech for more details.

Are you suggesting that the Santa Cruz is not of usable quality? I
remember when this used to be a pretty good card. In fact, the card I
replaced with a Lynx L22 was a Turtle Beach Tahiti, and the Santa
Crus was the next generation or so beyond it. Turtle Beach always
had a reputation for making sound cards better than the average OEM
product. Did they take a dive?

On the other hand, the Santa Cruz name has been around for many
year, and I expect that the actual hardware carrying that model name
has evolved. Hopefully not for the worse, but you can never be sure what
someone will consider "better" these days.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1094471686k@trad...
>
> In article <413bfba0$0$16193$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
TonyP@optus.net.com.au writes:
>
> > "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> > news:znr1094393063k@trad...
> > > You really don't have much choice when it comes to quality. They're
> > > all pretty good these days once you get out of the "cheap sound card"
> > > range, which you'll have to do in order to get four channels.
> >
> > Not necessarily, the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz does 4 channel recording.
> > See my post on rec.audio.tech for more details.
>
> Are you suggesting that the Santa Cruz is not of usable quality?

I don't see where I wrote that? I said it's the cheapest card that I know of
that does 4 channel recording.
Whilst it is not too bad, it's still definitely a consumer card.

> remember when this used to be a pretty good card. In fact, the card I
> replaced with a Lynx L22 was a Turtle Beach Tahiti, and the Santa
> Crus was the next generation or so beyond it. Turtle Beach always
> had a reputation for making sound cards better than the average OEM
> product. Did they take a dive?

It's all relative. The TBSC is a little better than the cheap Sound
Blasters.
Definitely not in the same league as a Lynx.

> On the other hand, the Santa Cruz name has been around for many
> year, and I expect that the actual hardware carrying that model name
> has evolved. Hopefully not for the worse, but you can never be sure what
> someone will consider "better" these days.

They don't make anything above consumer AFAIK.
Progress is such that the TBSC is better than their earlier cards,
regardless of it's cheaper price.
Many others have gone a LOT further though.

TonyP.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <413ebed2$0$20717$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> TonyP@optus.net.com.au writes:

> > Are you suggesting that the Santa Cruz is not of usable quality?
>
> I don't see where I wrote that?

I only asked if that's what you had said. I didn't read your thread in
rec.audio.tech (and I'm not going to).

> I said it's the cheapest card that I know of
> that does 4 channel recording.
> Whilst it is not too bad, it's still definitely a consumer card.

No problem with that. That's all it was ever meant to be. However,
there's no reason why, if a "consumer" product fills a need, one can't
use it.

> It's all relative. The TBSC is a little better than the cheap Sound
> Blasters.
> Definitely not in the same league as a Lynx.

That's for sure. But the real reason why I replaced my Tahiti was that
it had outlived its usefulness since its driver development stopped
with Win98. Also, its mini jacks had worn out long ago. I had a 9-pin
D-sub connector hanging out on a piece of cable to make input and
output connections - a modification I was able to make in order to
extend its useful service life. But eventually it had to go. I was
tossing around the M-Audio Audiophile card and the Echo Mia, but it
looked like the Lynx was better supported as a "professional" product
and that's what made it my choice. I wasn't disappointed with the
sound, either. <g>


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1094643889k@trad...
>
> In article <413ebed2$0$20717$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
TonyP@optus.net.com.au writes:
>
> > > Are you suggesting that the Santa Cruz is not of usable quality?
> >
> > I don't see where I wrote that?
>
> I only asked if that's what you had said. I didn't read your thread in
> rec.audio.tech (and I'm not going to).

So you critisise without even reading. How typical.


> > I said it's the cheapest card that I know of
> > that does 4 channel recording.
> > Whilst it is not too bad, it's still definitely a consumer card.
>
> No problem with that. That's all it was ever meant to be. However,
> there's no reason why, if a "consumer" product fills a need, one can't
> use it.

That's why I suggested it. What exactly *IS* your problem?

TonyP.