Jump to content


Photo

Xonar Essence ST/X


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#41 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,528 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 10:14 PM

true enough. i was factoring in the recording end of things, where 16 is not enough. at the playback end, i dont suppose i could have ever heard dynamic range differences, all things being equal. however, ive long favoured the idea of a 24-bit/48kHz release format because it simplifies some of the mastering. this is probably from having heard my share of 16-bit versions of 24-bit masters that sound somewhat degraded. granted, this is probably due to noise rather than anything else, but when it is most noticeable as clean crisp sounds fade to black in pristine listening conditions, it is tantamount to a loss of 'range'.
no pung intended

#42 SledgY

SledgY

    Master

  • Atomican
  • 917 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:46 AM

I'm not sure how 24bit/48khz simplifies mastering... A master is produced from the final 24bit/48Khz mix, the and the level normalised. At this point we are looking at dynamic range of ~12db max, after downsampling to 44Khz we are left with a CD quality stereo track with the same dynamic range, it just takes up less storage. If a 16bit master sounds bad it's because the master is bad not because it's 16bit. 24bit in recording is largely for headroom reasons, you can recording perfectly fine at 16bit provided you use compression before you hit the DAC to prevent clipping. The extra headroom allows you to record just the raw input and apply compression afterwards, letting you play with the settings more later.
poweredbypenguins.org - SledgY lives in the cloud...

#43 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,528 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:26 PM

"24bit in recording is largely for headroom reasons" um, no. i think you will find it is for added sparkle. headroom? never heard of it. 16-bit + compressor is not "perfectly fine" if you dont want to introduce errors/noise and interfere with linearity. hence, the next 4 useful bits above 16 = pure unadulterated sparkle. as for differences between 16 and 24bit masters — they happen, in practice, when digitial gear working in real life signal chains is pushed beyond some limit that does not even exist on paper. they dont have to happen, and shouldnt happen, but they do. and its something that may not always be written off as the result of cheap gear, small internal word sizes, flaky dithering plugins, or operator error. and it all means the same thing = a loss of pure unadulterated sparkle.

Edited by @~thehung, 13 February 2013 - 03:27 PM.

no pung intended

#44 SledgY

SledgY

    Master

  • Atomican
  • 917 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:10 AM

"24bit in recording is largely for headroom reasons"

um, no. i think you will find it is for added sparkle. headroom? never heard of it.

16-bit + compressor is not "perfectly fine" if you dont want to introduce errors/noise and interfere with linearity. hence, the next 4 useful bits above 16 = pure unadulterated sparkle.

as for differences between 16 and 24bit masters — they happen, in practice, when digitial gear working in real life signal chains is pushed beyond some limit that does not even exist on paper. they dont have to happen, and shouldnt happen, but they do. and its something that may not always be written off as the result of cheap gear, small internal word sizes, flaky dithering plugins, or operator error. and it all means the same thing = a loss of pure unadulterated sparkle.

I take it then you do not have experience with recording.

Headroom: When you are recording you set the input gain on your microphone preamp (or line input) so that the average level sits around the middle (or a little above) on the meters. This means that the difference between that midpoint and the maximum level (before clipping occurs). Obviously here a 24bit sample size has a much wider range and hence headroom. The wikipedia info

Sparkle: When somebody asks for sparkle it's usually involves tweaking the EQ on the high end frequencies, nothing to do with bit depth.

All of the masters I've had done are from 24bit stems/mixes. Once the master is completed it is then down-sampled to 16bit/44Khz. Digital gear does not get pushed beyond it's limits, one hard limit on digital gear is the peak level, you can't go past it, hitting that limit is called digital clipping, it sounds crap you don't go there, sorry man but you are starting enter into audiophile fantasy land territory.

Edited by SledgY, 14 February 2013 - 10:23 AM.

poweredbypenguins.org - SledgY lives in the cloud...

#45 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,528 posts

Posted 14 February 2013 - 02:48 PM

haha you passed the aspy test.
no pung intended

#46 SledgY

SledgY

    Master

  • Atomican
  • 917 posts

Posted 15 February 2013 - 10:49 AM

haha you passed the aspy test.

Heh spent a lot of time researching digital audio, have an ever expanding rack of gear out of it. Don't start a studio, is one deep money pit! Although a lot cheaper for the band than paying studio rates!
poweredbypenguins.org - SledgY lives in the cloud...

#47 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,528 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:04 PM

actually, i was referring to you not properly inferring my tone.

the fact i entered the thread to offer a technical correction of sorts mightve been some indication i wasnt in need of being talked at on the topic of compression. nevertheless, i was quite happy to let that (and successive lectures) slide, for their potential benefit to others. i also conceded the point about dynamic range at the playback end (with some reservations).

but i think you need to read with a little more grace and a little less presumption. the fact you could actually believe i was serious about "pure unadulterated sparkle" or not having heard of headroom... (*gobsmacked*)

having considered this further, particularly in reference to operas ive recorded, nailing down all possible sources of the degradation is academic. because you see, i want to be able to preserve everything from booming timpani capable of shaking windows, to a distant triangle trailing off into nothing but room tone and component self-noise without the introduction of audible quantisation error and dither.

this is true even for sounds falling below the threshold of audibility under ordinary listening conditions. it is worth keeping in mind at this point that an opera can meander to a sustained crescendo over the course of 3 or more hours. if a listener likes a particular quiet section, that might end up as a track destined for aggressive normalisation at the hands of their ripping software and/or just purposively listened to very loud. "too loud" one could argue but if there is extra detail coming from a closely miked choir which would otherwise be denied them (due to the relatively distant theoretical listening position of the mix), why shouldnt they hear it with the utmost clarity?

i have perceived the difference between 24 and 16 in ways extending from the very subtle (and no doubt at least bordering on self-deception) to the unsubtle. the latter has been when mixing and routinely dealing with whispers amplified to the level of shouts. in that respect, with a super clean signal, 24-bit audio is the gift that keeps on giving. the utility it offers is akin to zooming in on a photo with a resolution beyond what is required for orthodox printing or display. in the end, it is not for you or i to scoff at listeners who would appreciate having the option to defy the ordinary 'rules' of listening in a similar way, for whatever reason.

a release medium should cover all bases. 16 bit is enough, with some extremely marginal qualifications. 24 bit is more than enough, period. in most practical respects those extra bits are excessive, but i would like to think improvements in the economy of digital storage are increasingly making any potential of diminished returns a non-issue.
no pung intended

#48 SledgY

SledgY

    Master

  • Atomican
  • 917 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:56 AM

actually, i was referring to you not properly inferring my tone.

the fact i entered the thread to offer a technical correction of sorts mightve been some indication i wasnt in need of being talked at on the topic of compression. nevertheless, i was quite happy to let that (and successive lectures) slide, for their potential benefit to others. i also conceded the point about dynamic range at the playback end (with some reservations).

but i think you need to read with a little more grace and a little less presumption. the fact you could actually believe i was serious about "pure unadulterated sparkle" or not having heard of headroom... (*gobsmacked*)

Tone is not obvious to others a text based medium, part of my recent role was to deliver technical lectures and it's something I shift into, although a little bit of trolling on your part ;). I like to ensure that facts are represented and a little confrontation is not always a bad thing (provided it doesn't move into personal attacks). My comments regarding compression where more aimed at missinformation surrounding the "90's noise wars".

Operas/Classical are not something I've recorded myself and am all ears on this topic my early musical training was in a 30+ brass band primarily on percussion, am very familier with the massive sounds you can get from timpani! Being a percussionist/drummer I have spent most of my time going after a great drum sound.

Anyway great to know there are others on these boards with similar interests/experiences.

- Tim
poweredbypenguins.org - SledgY lives in the cloud...

#49 spankdmonke

spankdmonke

    Apprentice

  • Quark
  • 124 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:45 PM

Do you guys know if Dre beats solo HD that I own, would be worth the purchase of his $170 card? Would the headphones be significantly improved making this purchase worthy? Dre beats solo HD Xonar essence STX
Asus P8Z68-V Intel i5 2500k 3.3Ghz OC @ 4.0 Noctua NH-U12P 8GB RIPJAWS X 1600Mhz Gigabyte HD 7850 OC Ver. Asus MX239H AH-IPS SSD Intel 530 128GB WD Green 3TB Seasonic X 650W 80+ Gold Fractal R3

#50 .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

.:Cyb3rGlitch:.

    Hero

  • Mod
  • 21,368 posts

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:31 PM

It'll improve the sound a bit, but Beats headphones are pretty poor quality from the get go. They're a fashion item more than an audio solution.

"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." - Mark Twain
 
An open mind is willing to consider new ideas, while provisionally accepting those backed by empirical evidence, and provisionally rejecting those without.


#51 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 19,971 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:30 AM

Do you guys know if Dre beats solo HD that I own, would be worth the purchase of his $170 card? Would the headphones be significantly improved making this purchase worthy?

Dre beats solo HD
Xonar essence STX



They're a horrible headphone, but the card is nice.
Tip? When a 'name' releases a product its usually complete shit.... but in this case it's not... but there is a HUGE but.

Basically Dre's are meant for 'his type' of music. Rap, RnB, Slowjams, etc. The bass is over pronounced and the highs suffer for this. But boy do they sound rich and truly amazing for 'his style' of music.
The second you put on ANY other genre, that ups the temp just a bit, the bass gets muddy as they simply cant keep up with the beat.
So now you have no highs, horrible floppy lows with no seperation between the beats, and a barely passable midraneg for hundreds of dollars... no thanks.
Wanna hear for yourself? Put some dragonforce through them, or any modern electronic song. Even Dubstep is often too 'fast' for BEATS to sound good.

If you want portable phones, the best are Koss Portapros, about $35 from mymemory.co.uk (they ship to AUS)
If you want studio style 'at home' phones, the range is bloody huge.... get onto the headfi website and start learning.
Though if its clarity you want, even the Sennheiser HD202's are better; they're closed though so their bass is a little less; but IMO they blow away dre's for half the price.

If there is a storeDJ near you, I'd recommend going in and trying some propper headphones. Not 'fashion phones'. Besides, if you LIKE your music\audio (and are trying to impress people who do too), you'll find people are more impressed by genuine monitor level phones from a decent brand, than by something some dude who wrote some music sometime slapped his name on.

Want cheap and fucking good?
https://www.storedj....cts/KRK-KNS6400

Edited by Master_Scythe, 13 May 2013 - 09:38 AM.

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#52 spankdmonke

spankdmonke

    Apprentice

  • Quark
  • 124 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 08:22 PM

Thanks ill check it out. Yeah I didn't buy the dre, and read enough to know not to buy them, I got them as a gift from someone who got them free with a phone plan. My origonal idea was to get Audio Technica... M50s I think? as my 1st studios. But since I have dre solo they may as well hold me over for now. So I'm thinking to get this sound card to maybe to improve the dre solo and some other better head phones I get when the dre solo are dead. I do play with albeton live as an amature also
Asus P8Z68-V Intel i5 2500k 3.3Ghz OC @ 4.0 Noctua NH-U12P 8GB RIPJAWS X 1600Mhz Gigabyte HD 7850 OC Ver. Asus MX239H AH-IPS SSD Intel 530 128GB WD Green 3TB Seasonic X 650W 80+ Gold Fractal R3

#53 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 19,971 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:53 AM

You know?
For $0, the Beats by Dre are a bargain! Best headphones in their price category! :P

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#54 spankdmonke

spankdmonke

    Apprentice

  • Quark
  • 124 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:44 PM

You know?
For $0, the Beats by Dre are a bargain! Best headphones in their price category! :P


hahaha... thanks :P
So you reckon its worth getting Xonar now or wait till i have better headphones? :P

Edited by spankdmonke, 17 May 2013 - 12:45 PM.

Asus P8Z68-V Intel i5 2500k 3.3Ghz OC @ 4.0 Noctua NH-U12P 8GB RIPJAWS X 1600Mhz Gigabyte HD 7850 OC Ver. Asus MX239H AH-IPS SSD Intel 530 128GB WD Green 3TB Seasonic X 650W 80+ Gold Fractal R3

#55 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 19,971 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 17 May 2013 - 12:52 PM

A sound card made a noticible difference when I was younger and had $11 USB powered plastic speakers (no shit)..... so I betcha it'll make a difference here too. While buying early risks 'something better' coming out; is it going to be 'much' better? Probably not. As an example; for 2 channel sound, my 10yr old PCI Soundblaster LIVE! sounds better than onboard. No matter the speakers.

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#56 spankdmonke

spankdmonke

    Apprentice

  • Quark
  • 124 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 10:08 PM

Ok so my dre solo's won't be significantly improved, but it will sound a lot better. Thanks for the response. I should probably just get the cheaper Xonar DG

Edited by spankdmonke, 23 May 2013 - 10:11 PM.

Asus P8Z68-V Intel i5 2500k 3.3Ghz OC @ 4.0 Noctua NH-U12P 8GB RIPJAWS X 1600Mhz Gigabyte HD 7850 OC Ver. Asus MX239H AH-IPS SSD Intel 530 128GB WD Green 3TB Seasonic X 650W 80+ Gold Fractal R3

#57 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 19,971 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:58 AM

Yep. Any Xonar will be good really. What you're looking for is dedicated processing and getting the DAC away from the motherboards hundred other components. ANY soundcard will do that; hence my soundblaster live still working :P

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#58 spankdmonke

spankdmonke

    Apprentice

  • Quark
  • 124 posts

Posted 29 May 2013 - 10:21 PM

Ok, im convinced now. Xonar DG $30-$40 you saved me money :D Right now im getting an annoying buzz from my headphones connected to my monitor, connected to my realtec HD on board sound. This should probably go too, judging from peoples comments on the product. Bonus :D
Asus P8Z68-V Intel i5 2500k 3.3Ghz OC @ 4.0 Noctua NH-U12P 8GB RIPJAWS X 1600Mhz Gigabyte HD 7850 OC Ver. Asus MX239H AH-IPS SSD Intel 530 128GB WD Green 3TB Seasonic X 650W 80+ Gold Fractal R3

#59 spankdmonke

spankdmonke

    Apprentice

  • Quark
  • 124 posts

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:23 PM

I held off on the sound card, but now its time for one...

Asus Xonar STX II
I wonder when this will be out

Edited by spankdmonke, 05 May 2014 - 08:25 PM.

Asus P8Z68-V Intel i5 2500k 3.3Ghz OC @ 4.0 Noctua NH-U12P 8GB RIPJAWS X 1600Mhz Gigabyte HD 7850 OC Ver. Asus MX239H AH-IPS SSD Intel 530 128GB WD Green 3TB Seasonic X 650W 80+ Gold Fractal R3

#60 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 19,971 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:19 PM

looks fancy, but i'd have no use for the 'features'. I only have speakers worth a three or so hundred, a $50 Xonar will do all I need.

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users