Got my M-Audio Audiophile 2496

At what point would you say I'm manipulating the signal? Splitting sides into tracks? Fading in at the beginning and out at the end of a side? These are grey areas I'm not too sure about, since even simple editing involves moving some bits around, and I'd welcome some Forum wisdom here. (Which is the better tradeoff: going down to redbook to minimize degradation during simple editing, or accepting some possibly audible changes resulting from simple editing in an attempt to avoid the losses of downconversion?) Later post correction: Let me put that a better way: is it better to record at 16/44.1 from the outset if I'm only doing fades and file-splitting, or is it wiser to record at 24/96 since any editing or manipulation needs that resolution to avoid artifacts?


When it comes to normalization, of course, I figure that "manipulation" certainly describes what I'm doing.

How does one burn 24/96 onto a disc so that a receiver's 24/96 DAC will simply decode the bitstream coming down the pipe? My Denon receiver will do this decoding, and some DVD-A's have DVD-V-accessible 24/96 tracks that don't require DVD-A decoding.

 

Although there is a whole lot of calculation going on during normalization, I do it to 16-bit files I rip from CDs. Also, fades are included in the catagory of normalization. What *I* mean by simple edits are just snipping pops or whatever, not major editing like removing whole chunks of data or rearranging them. If you MUST do something major to an already dithered file, turn off the dithering. It is preferable to take you 16-bit file back to 24 or 32-bit for further processing. But, if you do, DO NOT dither again.

No. You do not go down to redbook to edit. Stay high for as long as possible. If you record at 96k or 88.2k, and you are at either 24 or 32 bit, you can safely go down to 44.1 before further manipulation.

 

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in the way I worded my question. I do know that I should edit at high resolution, if that editing is major. What I'm asking is which is worse: simple editing (fades, interpolating clicks and pops, splitting sides into tracks) done at redbook levels, or conversion artifacts generated with sample rate and bit-depth conversion. Another way to ask the question is this: at what point does the editing become so "major" that I really should start with a hi-rez file to get high quality redbook results?

 

My policy has always been to do "simple" processing like click removal and fades in 16-bit. And IIRC, Grant does the same.

 

Would splitting a side-long .wav file into tracks qualify as "simple"? (That's a real question.) After I put markers at the beginning of each track, I do a copy and control-E (paste clipboard into a new track) to end up with one .wav file for each track. Does that kind of work push me over the edge into better-do-the-work-at-hi-rez?

 

Uh, I usually don't do fades at 16-bit. That's gain changing.

It's isn't always so critical to work only at high resolutions. If I rip some CD tracks, for an example, and want to do some trimming, simple declicking, or even some normalization, I often do it at 16-bit. I'm not that anal about it. But, if I just recorded some vinyl, or am doing some demo work, you'd better believe i'm going to work at hi-bit depths!

 

Gardo, don't worry about dividing a big wave into tracks at 16-bit.

If you use Cool Edit/Audition, there is a faster and easier way to do this, BTW. Use the Cue List. It will split the tracks automatically while you just sit back for a minute and wait. All you have to do is place the cue marks where you want them, with one at the very beginning of the big wave, and one at the very end, open the cue list, hit "merge", highlight the new ranges, click on the "batch" tab, set your parameters, and hit done, OK, or whatever it is to save them. It is fast and very accurate!

 

Just to put the nail into that rumor, that information is not correct. All the M-Audio PCI cards, even the cheap consumer ones, have full 24-bit I/O, no compromises.

 

So, where is this rumor coming from?

 

I got this from another thread: I was thinking about buying this Audiophile 2496 card for Mac Dual 800. Now after reading this should I? Any other Mac users have problem with this card?


galactustrilogy

Junior Member


Join Date: Feb 2004

Location: sunnyvale, calif

Posts: 24
Just FYI:
I had hellacious problems with the Audiophile USB connected to my Mac G4 1.25 ghz dual-mirrored door model. If you have this computer, be careful! I ended up sending the unit back after numerous Kernal Panics that went unresolved.

Yesterday, 02:32 PM
* #7


AudioEnz

Senior Member


Join Date: Dec 2002

Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Posts: 768
In the three years of using OSX, I've had only a (very) few freezes on my Mac. Until I got an Audiophile USB. Since then, I can guarantee that my Mac will crash in each session of using that damned thing.

The other item about this device is that it lacks an input level control. This means that you need to place another device between your stereo and the M-Audio unit. I find it incredible that a device called a "USB Audiophile" could be lacking this basic neccesity.

__________________
Michael Jones - Editor
17 years of New Zealand's most read hi-fi magazine
Have your say! http://www.audioenz.co.nz/forums
http://www.audioenz.co.nz