EMU 1212m V2 ΚΑΡΤΑ ΗΧΟΥ

[caravelle]

Το πολύ ενδιαφέρον που βρίσκω είναι ότι αν και παλαιότερη, (4-5 ετών), συγκρίνεται ως εξής με την ASUS ESSENCE (ως προς τα σημεία που με ενδιαφέρει):

1)έχει S/N 120 DB στο αναλογικό, (ASUS ESSENCE STX: 124 DB). (Μάλλον το Νο 2 αμέσως μετά την ΑSUS.

2)ξεχωριστή κάρτα αναλογικού, (είναι ουσιαστικά δύο κάρτες), κάτι που εξασφαλίζει τον περιορισμό των παρεμβολών από τον ηλεκτρονικό θόρυβο, λέει, (ASUS καπάκι προστασίας).

3)ισορροπημένες, (balanced), αναλογικές εξόδους, που διασφαλίζουν ότι και μετά την έξοδο του ήχου από το σύστημα, στον δρόμο προς τον ενισχυτή, ο ήχος δεν θα αλλοιωθεί από ηλεκτρονικές παρεμβολές. (ASUS ΟΧΙ).

4)δυνατότητα τοποθέτησης, (με κολητήρι δυστυχώς), καλύτερων opamps, και γενικότερα υπάρχει προηγούμενη πείρα στην βελτίωσή της. (ΑSUS: αλλαγή εύκολα γιατί είναι με φισάκια).

Γενικά δίνει εξαιρετικό HD 24/192 stereo ήχο, λέει.

Υπάρχει άποψη για αυτήν την κάρτα;

 

[caravelle]

Να και ένα συγκριτικό του 2004 που ίσως ενδιαφέρει:

Review: Benchmark DAC1 vs RME HDSP 9632 vs RME PAD vs EMU 1212M

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Point
So for the better part of nine months, I've been blabbing on about how great PC's can be as an audio source, leading my fellow head-fiers on a wild trip modding soundcard after soundcard, finally to end up with the highly acclaimed Benchmark DAC1 at the end of a computer transport. Now it’s time to see where the chips truly lie. As a result of modding card for others, I have been able to evaluate the three cards listed (both pre- and post-mods) in the past few days against the benchmark.

The System:
Benchmark DAC-1 (used with Quail power cord to Monster PC1000)
RME HDSP 9632 (stock, and modded with blackgate N coupling caps, and FK power caps)
RME Digi96/8 PAD (stock, and modded with blackgate FK caps to bypass analog ouput stage)
E-MU 1212M (stock, and modded with blackgate std power caps, N coupling caps, and LT1364 output opamps)
PC powered by PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 510 (quiet fan modded)
eBay Glass Toslink cable (from soundcards to Benchmark)
DIY Canare Starquad IC's (from soundcards/Benchmark to amp)
Gilmore V1 with laddered attenuator
Sony CD3000 with Headphile bubinga R10 woodies and starquad cable
Beyerdynamic DT531

The Music (all losslessly encoded to hard drives from original CD's via EAC):
AC/DC - Back In Black
Alexander Markov - Paganini's 24 caprices & violin concerto op.1
Blaze - Silicon Messiah
Cincinnati Pops Orchesta - Great Movie Scores
Dream Theater - Awake
Hallucinogen - The Lone Deranger
Diana Krall - The Look of Love
Megadeth - Hidden Treasures
Savatage - The Wake of Magellan
Zero Hour - The Tower of Avarice

The Results
Simply put, no matter which card I used as the transport, the DAC1 is at the head of this class and by a good margin. It has the ability to react much more quickly to the changes in the signal, making for a much tighter, faster, more detailed, more dynamic listening experience than any of the soundcards in any form can muster. Because of this, the music takes on a more lively and engaging character. The midrange has a lovely character about it that is partially responsible for this effect; it is fun and exciting without being overly warm or nasal. Also the bass is considerably more powerful, especially with the right material, but the bass is no louder than the others, it's just that each note carries more weight. Some would say the treble is bright, I don't think that it is bright as much as it is lively, and more realistic than the somewhat dead treble of the others (however I do think the CD3000 is too bright for this source).

Closest to this performance is that of the modded RME HDSP, which though it lacks the detail and dynamics of the DAC1, it generally has very nice timbre and overall sound balance, not to mention the best dynamics of any of the cards tested. It sounds as if the music is a bit subdued compared to the DAC1, as if the performances are a bit more robotic and lacking heart.

Next, the modded EMU and stock HDSP are fairly close, the latter having a more pleasing tonal quality, the former with a bit more speed and detail. Neither have quite the 3-D soundstage of the modded HDSP, and they both lose some of it's richness, making you seem just another level detached from the actual musical performance.

The stock EMU gives away some more richness and speed from the modded EMU, to the point where it sounds a bit dry and dull in comparison. Don't get me wrong, it is still a great source, especially for the money, very detailed with a nice wide soundstage. I think this card is the best entry-point to computer audiophilia, and others have well-documented how it compares mightily with sub $1000 CDP's.

The modded PAD kicks down a rung further on the ladder, with less detail, speed, dynamics, and bass power. Compared directly to the DAC1, it sounds quite dull, even boring to me now, as if someone had put thick drapes between me and the musical performance. Again, if I could not do such a comparison, it sounds pretty nice, fairly rich, but a bit slow, definitely lacking compared to the higher rated soundcards. Considering the low cost of the EMU, this is really not worth it, unless you need the driver features, or already have one and need better sound than...

the stock PAD, the one that started it all for me. As great as I thought this card once sounded, directly compared with the DAC1, it sounds quite pathetic, with the drape-effect of the modded PAD heightened somewhat, and the treble distortion of the poor analog output section getting on my nerves. It definitely can sound good if you've no experience with good sources, but after a while you can see it's true colors.

If I had to rate them based on how well they allow you to experience the music you play on them, I'd say:

Benchmark DAC-1 10/10 (my benchmark hehe )
modded HDSP 9632 7.5/10
modded EMU 1212M 7/10
stock HDSP 9632 6.75/10
stock EMU 1212M 6.00/10
modded RME PAD 4.75/10
stock RME PAD 3.75/10

I know these ratings might seem a bit harsh, and the sound differences themselves might not always sound huge, but to me, the differences I how I experience the music can be huge between these sources, hence my ratings.


Καλό;

 

[caravelle]

Kαι η απάντηση του ειδικού μιας και ήρθε γρήγορα αφού δεν το παίζει...Κινέζος:

Just a few more things:

Production Forums isn't really about modding gear, more about how to make it work properly in a studio environment. That said, regarding your modding question... this thread might give you some good pointers:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/budge ... mod-79295/

As stated there, you can easily spend twice as much as the 1212m costs, just for better capacitors and opamps...

So, think long and hard about what you want to spend your money on...

Also keep in mind that you will lose your warranty the moment you start soldering...

Regarding the review you quoted:

From all I've read/heard about the Benchmark DAC1 (and know about what makes audio interfaces sound excellent), the biggest advantage the DAC1 has over other gear is its incredibly "tight" clock. The more stable a DAC's clock is, the "tighter" / "punchier" / "clearer" (and whatever other "colorful terms" some so-called "audiophiles" may use) the sound becomes. The DACs of the 1212m are superior to the ones in the Benchmark DAC1, so if you synced the 1212m to an external clock signal that matches (or beats) the Benchmark DAC1's clock, the 1212m would, most likely, sound even better. But, as I stated before, such clock units (e.g. Apogee's Big Ben) cost about 10 times more than what the 1212m itself costs (or even a lot more)...

Some issues I have with the review you quoted: the moment reviewers start talking about some gear sounding "more musical" or "warmer" than other gear, a red flag goes up for me that says: "coloration!"

Either an audio interface does reproduce the source material very "honest" (more appropriate technical terms would be "linear" and so forth), or it adds coloration. The latter can -- absolutely -- sound more pleasant, depending on the source material. The sound of a great tube microphone is perfect example for that kind of "warmth" or "musicality". But that's no longer a truthful / uncolored reproduction of the source material.

Therefore, when that reviewer states that the unmodded 1212m sounds "dryer" than his modded unit, it may simply mean that the unmodded one reproduces the source material more accurately.

Plus, the reviewer only used ripped CDs (= 44.1kHz/16-bit source material) for his listening tests. Some 96k/24-bit reference tracks (or even 192k/24-bit) would have been more appropriate.

Lastly, re. the Sony headphones the reviewer used... while I've never auditioned the CD3000 model, I've had some higher quality Sony cans in the past... and all of them sounded way too bright... I haven't come across a single pair of Sony headphones that didn't bump up the treble range significantly. (Most likely because people -- subjectively, unconsciously -- associate that with more "transparency"...)

Bottom line: if I were you, I'd check out the 1212m without any mods, first, and give it a long, hard listen to determine how it sounds to your ears, over your other links in your audio chain -- (pre)amps, speakers, headphones...

Then, if you still feel like you want/have to mod it... proceed at your own risk.

One thing is for sure: getting an audio interface that almost matches the Benchmark DAC1 in playback quality for around one eighth the price (plus gives you quite a few more features that the DAC1 does not offer) is one sweet deal...

Τέλειο; :107:

 

[caravelle]

Ρωτώντας τον ίδιο ειδικό, (η συζήτηση γίνεται εδώ:


http://www.productionforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10427&p=68067#p68067)

ποιά είναι η αποψή του σχετικά με το υποχρεωτικό upsampling που κάνει το benchmark σε σχέση με την κάρτα όπου εμείς επιλέγουμε τι θέλουμε, πήρα την εξής απάντηση:

 

[caravelle]

Well... the merits of upsampling are a matter of much debate. In my view, upsampling can "smooth things out" a bit, as long as it's something simple like doubling (or even quadrupling) the sample rate of the source material, e.g. going from 48 kHz to 96kHz, or even 192kHz.

My knowledge in this area is still quite limited, but it seems that the algorithms that do the upsampling produce "cleaner sounding" results when it's a simple matter of doubling the number of samples, as opposed to going from something like 44.1kHz to 48kHz (or 96, or whatever) where the non-integer ratio may introduce "nasty sounding" artefacts that more than negate what would be gained from the "finer resolution" that upsampling produces.

Personally, I prefer getting the original audio bit stream completely unaltered to the DACs of the audio interface and then adjust only the volume in the analog domain -- if necessary. But then again... I'm a purist...

 

[Timbre]

Απάντηση: Re: EMU 1212m V2 ΚΑΡΤΑ ΗΧΟΥ

Well... the merits of upsampling are a matter of much debate. In my view, upsampling can "smooth things out" a bit, as long as it's something simple like doubling (or even quadrupling) the sample rate of the source material, e.g. going from 48 kHz to 96kHz, or even 192kHz.

My knowledge in this area is still quite limited, but it seems that the algorithms that do the upsampling produce "cleaner sounding" results when it's a simple matter of doubling the number of samples, as opposed to going from something like 44.1kHz to 48kHz (or 96, or whatever) where the non-integer ratio may introduce "nasty sounding" artefacts that more than negate what would be gained from the "finer resolution" that upsampling produces.

Personally, I prefer getting the original audio bit stream completely unaltered to the DACs of the audio interface and then adjust only the volume in the analog domain -- if necessary. But then again... I'm a purist...

Μου αρέσει όπως τα λέει αυτός ο κύριος.. :616:

 

[vagos80gr]

Απάντηση: EMU 1212m V2 ΚΑΡΤΑ ΗΧΟΥ

Αυτό που δεν μου "αρέσει" είναι ότι αναφέρεται αποκλειστικά στη συχνότητα δειγματοληψίας και δεν βάζει στο παιχνίδι το oversampling και πως επηρεάζει.
Τι συμβαίνει όταν τα 16 bit του master ανεβαίνουν τεχνητά στα 24?
Μήπως αυτή η ενέργεια καλύπτει τα λάθη του upsamling ή προσθέτει ακόμα περισσότερα λάθη στην ηχητική αλυσίδα;
Άβυσσος τελικά...

 

[caravelle]

ΕMU 1212m jitter: 596 ps.

 

[caravelle]

Kαλύτερη από ASUS STX;

:107:

 

[caravelle]

Για δείτε και τα στοιχεία της STX:

:107:

 

[caravelle]

Για την 1212m τα στοιχεία είναι από τους AUDIOHOLICS και θα τα βρείτε εδώ:

http://www.audioholics.com/tweaks/do-it-yourself-diy-topics/building-a-windows-mce-2005-pc-part-4

:107:

 

[caravelle]

Kαι για την STX είναι από το HOTHARDWARE και θα τα βρείτε εδώ:

http://hothardware.com/Articles/ASUS-XONAR-Essence-STX-Headphone-Amp-Card/?page=5

:107:

 

[caravelle]

Εκτός από τα 192 khz, όπου ανεπαίσθητα υπερέχει η ASUS και όχι σε όλα!

Πιστεύω ότι η STX πρέπει να έχει χαμηλότερο jitter, αν και δεν αναφέρεται πουθενά το πόσο, αλλά η 1212m παίρνει εξωτερικό ρολόϊ για την καταπολέμησή του!

:107:

 

[caravelle]

Τι λέτε;

:121:

 

[caravelle]

Mόλις πρόσεξα ότι 1212m έχει δοκιμαστεί balanced!

:107:

 

[el_diablo]

Απάντηση: EMU 1212m V2 ΚΑΡΤΑ ΗΧΟΥ

Γιατι γκριζαρισες αγορινα ? :121:

 

[caravelle]

Re: Απάντηση: EMU 1212m V2 ΚΑΡΤΑ ΗΧΟΥ

Γιατι γκριζαρισες αγορινα ? :121:

Nταξ΄51 να ουμ΄. Και σένα πολύ κίτρινο σε βρίσκω...

:143::135::143:

 

[caravelle]

Τώρα βέβαια καλό είναι να εξηγήσω πως το σχόλιό σου αναφέρεται σε στιγμιαίο τεχνικό πρόβλημα, (δικό μου), που έκανε το nickname μου γκρί! (Για να καταλαβαίνει και ο κόσμος που διαβάζει!).

:107:

 

[caravelle]

Φίλε meletov κάποια άποψη επί του θέματος του thread;

:121:

 

[caravelle]

Mία απάντηση από το forum το αφιερωμένο στην 1212m:

Between the two specs shown, the E-MU obviously is the winner, with the other one only managing to come to a near tie with the E-MU in those few cases where the E-MU does not exceed it. And those are so close as to be statistically arguable in favor of the E-MU because of the other, more important specs, where E-MU wins hands down.

As for the "Subjective" paragraph written about the E-MU, well, it is indeed subjective, using terms like the author "feels" such and such is so doesn't move this old engineer in the slightest. The whole blurb sounds like Audiophile Jibber-Jabber of the type we should be quite familiar with, sound and fury signifying nothing. Or ad copy.

For those who may not have the experience at the Test Bench, let me say that Clock Jitter sounds like "smearing" of the audio, whereas the more stable clock circuit imparts more "clarity" overall. (But even that description must yield to language problems in defining what we hear versus the fact that we must keep in mind that all of these kind of terminologies place us squarely in the land of the subjective. I would say that the better method would be to perform the same experiment with a proven high quality external clock for yourself, which may be too expensive for the average user but can prove to be an enlightening and learning curve situation for those certain geeky types like myself. For example, the same clock, when used on an AP2496 card, improved the overall sonic quality of playback in a very noticeable manner, imparting that "clarity and depth" in no uncertain terms when compared to the same file playback using the card's internal clock. Still, I would not ever use the result from one datapoint to arrive at ANY conclusion pro or con concerning the entire model line... )

The cold hard facts of the matter are that none of us users have access to enough product sample to declare anything statistically valid about anyone's entire model line. All we can do is report what we find for the sample or few samples even that we have on hand to evaluate. Assumptions get made all the time about such things, unfortunately -- and writers of articles and "shootouts" etc. typically sidestep such important issues the vast majority of the time. On the other hand, we really can't expect them or the mfr to be able to test a statistically correct samplebase, either, and *some* data can be better than none at all, IF we all understand that the whole thing should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt and a good healthy amount of common sense.

The E-MU clock circuit is really remarkable considering the low price of the E-MU devices. I once A-B compared playback results using a 1616M and a very expensive external clock and though it was not a complete blindfold test, me being by myself and all, I really couldn't discern enough difference between the known external and provable jitter-free clock device clocking that 1616M and the 1616M when using its internal clock. Was rather impressive IMO.

We should beware of comparing any two (or three, etc.) devices based on only one specification, though. ALL specs must be taken together using the marvelous ability of the human mind to evaluate reports and decide first upon which device touts the overall majority of better quantitative measurements. That is usually considered to be the better sounding device. Or at least is the device that should have the capability of producing the better result for you.


--Mac

:107: