Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking? (Read 15205 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Ok, I've lurked around these forums for years without an account, never felt compelled to post until now.  I've been putting together a decent vinyl set-up recently and decided to invest in a modest soundcard to do some quality vinyl rips.  I recently bought an M-Audio Audiophile 2496 card.. I still have time to return it.
I just hooked it up today to my vinyl rig and am seriously pissed at what seems to be a fundamental flaw:  There is no way to adjust the input level to the soundcard.  I find this really hard to believe and rather nonsensical.  I am using a quality phono preamp and am, right now, auditioning a rather mellow album from Nana Caymmi and its clipping on at least one tune.  This is the setup

Pro-Ject RM-5SE Turntable with Sumiko Blue Point 2 cartridge -> Parasound Z-Phono preamp -> Audioquest King Cobra cables -  M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 card

Pretty simple, no??  It seems pretty f-ing ridiculous that I would have to put some kind of attentuator in between the phono preamp and the card, thereby mucking up my signal path.  But, searching in the Hydrogen Audio forums, this seems to be the only solution.  Adjusting the Delta Control Panel for the M-Audio only adjusts the signal POST input as far as I can tell.  The logic of this is lost on me.  Should I just return this card and get something else?? WTF???

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #1 –
Since that's a high output moving coil cartridge, do you have your preamp set for moving magnet or moving coil?  If you set it for moving coil, try moving magnet.  That will lower the gain.

If you already tried MM, sorry, no further suggestions.

Personally I have an Audiophile 2496 and an Ortofon OM20 cartridge with an Adcom preamp.  No problems on the signal level.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #2 –
I joined after I read your post, and I am not sure what the issue is. 

You do not state what CPU or software you plan on using, but I have had a Audiophile 2496 for 6+ years in a G4, and have never had a clipping issue when importing audio, except when the incoming signa level is too hot.  It sounds like your RIAA preamp is sending a signal that is above line line level, likely to match the output from a cd player.

It seems to me that you should check the preamp to see if it has a setting for -5 and -10db.  You could return the sound card, but I doubt you will find anything internal, at that price point, with line in level adjustment.

The card itself is a solid choice for sound quality, once you take some heat off your signal.
Check this:
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/maudioaudiophile

Best wishes on whatever you do.
MisterArcola

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #3 –
It is set to MM.  Having it in MC has ungodly distortion.


It must be due to the relatively high ouput of the Sumiko Blue Point 2.  This is a very quiet album and it only clips on two tracks.  But I don't even need to try some rock albums to know what the results will be.

I am looking at alternatives in EMU or Juli@ cards.  Not sure if I will need to go USB if what you say is true about PCI cards... I don't mind paying a little extra to have line-level control

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #4 –
The audiophile 2496 clips at about 1.4Vrms.

This is below the 2Vrms typical output from CD players, and has been discussed here before.

Before CD players gravitated towards 2Vmrs = 0dB FS as a kind of standard, there was no standard for analogue audio level.

As no one in their right mind is copying CDs by connecting the output of a CD player to the input of a 2496, it makes sense to have an input level that reflects typical analogue sources, like tuners, turntables etc. 1V rms was a common level back then. 1.4V rms gives about 3dB headroom.

I think that's why it is the way it is. I'm not saying it makes sense though!

Resistors are cheap enough though - make an attenuator!

Cheers,
David.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
The audiophile 2496 clips at about 1.4Vrms.

This is below the 2Vrms typical output from CD players, and has been discussed here before.

Before CD players gravitated towards 2Vmrs = 0dB FS as a kind of standard, there was no standard for analogue audio level.

As no one in their right mind is copying CDs by connecting the output of a CD player to the input of a 2496, it makes sense to have an input level that reflects typical analogue sources, like tuners, turntables etc. 1V rms was a common level back then. 1.4V rms gives about 3dB headroom.

I think that's why it is the way it is. I'm not saying it makes sense though!

Resistors are cheap enough though - make an attenuator!

Cheers,
David.


Thanks much for your input David!

Well besides not even knowing where my soldering iron is these days, I hesitate to put anything more into the signal path than I absolutely need to.  I've already made arrangements to return the 2496, and I don't mind paying a bit more to not have to build my own shit when the only application for this in the foreseeable future is vinyl ripping.

Anyone have opinions about the M-Audio Delta 66 or 44?  They both come with breakout boxes, which is actually rather attractive just for the convenience it offers in a home setup that is only for historical archiving / preservation.  Sweetwater has them for $190 and $150 respectively -- the 44 lacks SPDIF but that doesn't bother me.  However I am not sure if they allow for any attentuation of the input either..

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #6 –
If you trust the input gain control on any audio interface that costs less than $1000 above a resistor network you build yourself, your trust is vastly misplaced.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Flabbergast on
I hesitate to put anything more into the signal path than I absolutely need to.

Keep in mind, that line level attenuation before conversion is 'something' in your signal path, too. IMHO you can't get less influence on your signal than with fixed resistor attenuation.

Edit: Okay, Axon said something similar.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Axon on
If you trust the input gain control on any audio interface that costs less than $1000 above a resistor network you build yourself, your trust is vastly misplaced.



thanks for the sarcasm, Axon.  Pleased to make your surly basement-dwelling acquaintance.

@ soulsearchingsun, thanks for actually communicating some useful information.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #9 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
The audiophile 2496 clips at about 1.4Vrms.

This is below the 2Vrms typical output from CD players, and has been discussed here before.

Before CD players gravitated towards 2Vmrs = 0dB FS as a kind of standard, there was no standard for analogue audio level.

As no one in their right mind is copying CDs by connecting the output of a CD player to the input of a 2496, it makes sense to have an input level that reflects typical analogue sources, like tuners, turntables etc. 1V rms was a common level back then. 1.4V rms gives about 3dB headroom.

I think that's why it is the way it is. I'm not saying it makes sense though!

Resistors are cheap enough though - make an attenuator!

Cheers,
David.

thanks David.. It appears that the Audiophile 196 handles up to 4Vrms.. That's quite a big difference

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Flabbergast on
Quote from: Axon on
If you trust the input gain control on any audio interface that costs less than $1000 above a resistor network you build yourself, your trust is vastly misplaced.



thanks for the sarcasm, Axon.  Pleased to make your surly basement-dwelling acquaintance.


I think you misunderstood him.  That wasn't sarcasm, he was saying you should not trust low cost analog electronics unless you know they're good, not that you should trust them.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Mike Giacomelli on
Quote from: Flabbergast on
Quote from: Axon on
If you trust the input gain control on any audio interface that costs less than $1000 above a resistor network you build yourself, your trust is vastly misplaced.



thanks for the sarcasm, Axon.  Pleased to make your surly basement-dwelling acquaintance.


I think you misunderstood him.  That wasn't sarcasm, he was saying you should not trust low cost analog electronics unless you know they're good, not that you should trust them.


Right. Just because you pay a lot for an interface doesn't mean it doesn't have $2 pots inside.

Let me be a little more explicit here. A good volume control allows accurate, noise-free adjustment of gain across the full range of motion. The volume controls on the 0404 USB are bad under this criteria (very jumpy gain on some sections of the dial). The volume controls on the Yamaha GO46 are much worse than that. Those are ~$200 level interfaces, which represent the limits of my personal experience; a well-built volume control is likely to cost several times more than what it cost in those interfaces; I would expect the price level of a converter where *most* of the available products out there have good volume converters to be in the ~$1000 range, off the top of my head. Of course there are going to be cheaper options that might satisfy your requirements, but then you have to delve into the details of what one feels is acceptable, and how each specific interface actually behaves.

It just seems puzzling to me to fret over some custom RCA attenuator work (something a lot of people on Audio Asylum do!) on quality grounds while being oblivious to much larger issues under, ostensibly, the same metric of quality.

Gain adjustment shouldn't even be used for vinyl recording anyway, in my opinion. Just set your gain for -15 to -20dbFS for 1khz +0db and don't touch it again.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Axon on
Right. Just because you pay a lot for an interface doesn't mean it doesn't have $2 pots inside.

Let me be a little more explicit here. A good volume control allows accurate, noise-free adjustment of gain across the full range of motion. The volume controls on the 0404 USB are bad under this criteria (very jumpy gain on some sections of the dial). The volume controls on the Yamaha GO46 are much worse than that. Those are ~$200 level interfaces, which represent the limits of my personal experience; a well-built volume control is likely to cost several times more than what it cost in those interfaces; I would expect the price level of a converter where *most* of the available products out there have good volume converters to be in the ~$1000 range, off the top of my head. Of course there are going to be cheaper options that might satisfy your requirements, but then you have to delve into the details of what one feels is acceptable, and how each specific interface actually behaves.

It just seems puzzling to me to fret over some custom RCA attenuator work (something a lot of people on Audio Asylum do!) on quality grounds while being oblivious to much larger issues under, ostensibly, the same metric of quality.

Gain adjustment shouldn't even be used for vinyl recording anyway, in my opinion. Just set your gain for -15 to -20dbFS for 1khz +0db and don't touch it again.


If you think I am talking about riding a fader while recording vinyl, that's not it.  I am not looking for "gain adjustment."  I would love to just set the gain and leave it, the point is that there is no way to do this with the 2496.

I'm sorry, but the idea that you can't find a decent volume pot inside anything priced at under $1000 is just plain silly.  Now I am remembering why I generally avoid forums like this.  Most of you are too busy jerking off to your pristine snob-appeal audio gear.   
I apologize for "being oblivious", as you put it in your arrogance, but I would much rather listen to GOOD music on an entry-level audiophile system than hear Dark Side of the friggin Moon one more time on some tricked-out stereo that cost more than a sports car.

I am sorry I asked.

Moderation: One tonne of nested quotes removed.[/color]
 

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #13 –
Dude, his whole point was that a simple fixed resistor attenuator is bound to be higher quality than the options you're considering. If anything, audio gear masturbation is the least you'll see here. This is like the Stereophile (or Audio Asylum) antithesis of the internet.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Flabbergast on
If you think I am talking about riding a fader while recording vinyl, that's not it.  I am not looking for "gain adjustment."  I would love to just set the gain and leave it, the point is that there is no way to do this with the 2496.

I'm sorry, but the idea that you can't find a decent volume pot inside anything priced at under $1000 is just plain silly.  Now I am remembering why I generally avoid forums like this.  Most of you are too busy jerking off to your pristine snob-appeal audio gear.   
I apologize for "being oblivious", as you put it in your arrogance, but I would much rather listen to GOOD music on an entry-level audiophile system than hear Dark Side of the friggin Moon one more time on some tricked-out stereo that cost more than a sports car.

I am sorry I asked.

I get where you are coming from, Flabbergast.  I think you would be just fine soldering a potentiometer in line to set the level down.  Might have to put it in a box to keep the shielding, etc., and I get you are looking for a set it once and get on with the task.  A potentiometer might be the way to go just so its more convenient to zero in on the best compromise setting.

Please don't condemn the forum for some overstepping comments, I think you are spot on.  Many would be enlightened to find out how little the components of some "high end" gear really cost.  I don't think the high cost "snob" attitude is typical of the Hydrogenaudio forum - this tends to be a more objective, ABX bunch.

Glad to have you on board.
Was that a 1 or a 0?

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #15 –
There was no snob attitude in this thread.

Axon was simply stating that it would take spending a great deal of money before you would get, in his opinion, better results than what could be achieved by a low cost D.I.Y. approach.

Disagree with his price point - fine.
Consider his comment elitist absurd.

terry

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Flabbergast on
Now I am remembering why I generally avoid forums like this.  Most of you are too busy jerking off to your pristine snob-appeal audio gear.

I apologize for "being oblivious", as you put it in your arrogance, but I would much rather listen to GOOD music on an entry-level audiophile system than hear Dark Side of the friggin Moon one more time on some tricked-out stereo that cost more than a sports car.


He told you to buy a 10 cent resistor and you try and burn him on cost?  Maybe spend 2 minutes reading before you start attacking people.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #17 –
Helio

Why should a soundcard have a potentiometer? Connect your PhonoPre-Amp to an amplifier with Pre-Out connectors and use his volume control....

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Flabbergast on
Now I am remembering why I generally avoid forums like this.  Most of you are too busy jerking off to your pristine snob-appeal audio gear.   
I apologize for "being oblivious", as you put it in your arrogance, but I would much rather listen to GOOD music on an entry-level audiophile system than hear Dark Side of the friggin Moon one more time on some tricked-out stereo that cost more than a sports car.

I am sorry I asked.


That's one hell of an attitude given that you'd already got good information both confirming the problem and offering a simple solution. Anyway the battle with analog signal path has already been either won or lost by the time you've reached the pre-amp. After the pre-amp you can be pretty sure that it will make not one bit of difference whether you've got those lovely Audioquest King Cobra cables or whether you've got a basic $2 RCA cable or even an attenuator thrown in as well.

You don't have to make your own attenuators either, if you like ou can buy them off the shelf. You can get some nice cheap $4 ones like this
HERE or you can get some $80 ones that are gold plated and marked "audiophile" like these ones HERE. You probably wont hear any difference between the two.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: uart on
Quote from: Flabbergast on
Now I am remembering why I generally avoid forums like this.  Most of you are too busy jerking off to your pristine snob-appeal audio gear.   
I apologize for "being oblivious", as you put it in your arrogance, but I would much rather listen to GOOD music on an entry-level audiophile system than hear Dark Side of the friggin Moon one more time on some tricked-out stereo that cost more than a sports car.

I am sorry I asked.


That's one hell of an attitude given that you'd already got good information both confirming the problem and offering a simple solution. Anyway the battle with analog signal path has already been either won or lost by the time you've reached the pre-amp. After the pre-amp you can be pretty sure that it will make not one bit of difference whether you've got those lovely Audioquest King Cobra cables or whether you've got a basic $2 RCA cable or even an attenuator thrown in as well.

You don't have to make your own attenuators either, if you like ou can buy them off the shelf. You can get some nice cheap $4 ones like this
HERE or you can get some $80 ones that are gold plated and marked "audiophile" like these ones HERE. You probably wont hear any difference between the two.


this is the first time i've bought an 'fancy' RCA cables as I normally don't spend much time worrying about it.  I needed new cables and I was planning on reselling them in the Third World country I currently live in. I also thought they were a better option than, say, these

thanks for the attentuator links

Quote
tpijag     Posted Yesterday, 21:53
     There was no snob attitude in this thread.

Axon was simply stating that it would take spending a great deal of money before you would get, in his opinion, better results than what could be achieved by a low cost D.I.Y. approach.

Disagree with his price point - fine.
Consider his comment elitist absurd.

terry


Thanks Terry ,its obvious i misunderstood

I still find Axon's tone to be rather condescending and presumptuous and needlessly verbose.  For one, it presumes that building a DIY project, even one as simple as this one, is something that we all have an aptitude for.  My hands are far from steady but it still might be worth a try.  I think inline attenuators are a pretty practical solution as well as possibly switching to a preamp with slightly lower output.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #20 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
As no one in their right mind is copying CDs by connecting the output of a CD player to the input of a 2496, it makes sense to have an input level that reflects typical analogue sources, like tuners, turntables etc. 1V rms was a common level back then. 1.4V rms gives about 3dB headroom.



Heh. Count me as insane. I do this when digitizing analog output of SACD playback.

I can do it because my DVD player (Oppo 970) has user-adjustable output trim via a button on the remote control.  It just simplifies things.  I find the loudest part of the recording, set the output so that doesn't overload the 2496, and I'm good to go.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #21 –
Talking about attenuators and the issue of source that's a bit too hot I've had this happen to me in the past as well and needed to resort to attenuators.

I was just wondering on peoples thoughts of the best resistor values to use in a situation like this. It's typically a compromise between Ill effects of too higher resistance such as Johnson noise and RC delay and the Ill effects of loading down your pre-amp too much (most op-amp specs start to degrade when you're driving too lower resistance for example). Just as a purely academic exercise I'm interested in what resistor values people would choose for an (say about a 3 to 5 dB) attenuator here. (I've got my idea's on the matter but I'd like to see others and compare).

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #22 –
Just to throw a little fuel on the fire, quite good volume controls do exist at relatively low prices, but they probably aren’t based on potentiometers. The one in my five channel AV receiver is (correctly) calibrated in 1dB increments, is precision oiled bearings smooth, and is noise free. I’ve no schematic, but I suspect an SSM2018 behind the knob. If my recollection is correct, the entire receiver was less than $350. I doubt that the volume control was responsible for a very large portion of the cost.

Unfortunately there is no line level output on the far side of that volume control, except the subwoofer output, which is mono, but it happens to have the right phono preamp gain to have not required attenuation on any of 600+ LPs I’ve recorded through it. However, every cartridge and every phono preamp are different.

On the other hand, I’ve seen stand-alone volume controls in the $800 to $1000 range. I think they have all been multi-tap rotary switches, soldered full of precision resistors. I suspect the vapor deposited resistor arrays, used in some high-end equipment, are better and much cheaper, but I’ve never seen any for sale by themselves.

Also, to state another point in different words than I’ve noticed here, professional and semi-pro soundcards do not have input level adjustments. You are expected to feed them with the proper signal. A small mixer between the phono-preamp and the soundcard is a common solution. A line-level HiFi preamp would be swell, but almost certainly much more expensive.

There are always exceptions, of course, but not many. Some “audio interfaces” have analogue mixers built in; going through the mixer sections probably provides input level control. Axon was, I think, speaking very loosely when he mentioned “volume control” on the Emu 0404 USB. It is clear from other threads that he uses the microphone preamps as a MC phono preamp, applying the necessary EQ after recording. Microphone preamps have input gain controls, which are not volume controls. I suppose you could accuse me of being too fussy with words, but they will not work for a MM cartridge, which has to use the line level inputs.

M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: uart on
Talking about attenuators and the issue of source that's a bit too hot I've had this happen to me in the past as well and needed to resort to attenuators.

I was just wondering on peoples thoughts of the best resistor values to use in a situation like this. It's typically a compromise between Ill effects of too higher resistance such as Johnson noise and RC delay and the Ill effects of loading down your pre-amp too much (most op-amp specs start to degrade when you're driving too lower resistance for example). Just as a purely academic exercise I'm interested in what resistor values people would choose for an (say about a 3 to 5 dB) attenuator here. (I've got my idea's on the matter but I'd like to see others and compare).


First I'd make the point that I would not have bought a 24-96 if it did have an attenuator in the input - I use a high quality preamp with output level control, why add more to the path?  So for me the 24-96 makes sense.

The resistor value issue for an attenuator would best be made knowing the input impedance of the 24-96, plus the output impedance and the drive capability of the preamp.  The general policy is use the lowest values the preamp can cope with to keep injected noise to a minimum, and to cope with parasitic capacitance downstream for the attenuator, in line with the compromise you suggested.

In the absence of information I would make the assumptions that the preamp has a lowish output impedance and is at least capable of driving a 5k? load, and the 24-96 input impedance is over 10k?, possibly around 50k??  Using these assumptions the lowest you could go would be say input fed to 2.2k? in series with 3.3k? grounded at the other end and from which the output is taken.  The output impedance would be at least 1.4 k?, not that low but OK, attenuation assuming 10k? 24-96 input impedance and near zero pre-amp source impedance being around x0.56 or -5dB.

If we knew the phono pre-amp had a grunty output, then I'd go for lower values, eg. input fed to 1k? resistor in series with 1.5k? resistor from which output is taken.  Now the output impedance of the attenuator would be 600? and attenuation 4.94dB, but the pre-amp is driving a 2.3k? load.

Resistors are cheap - so suck it and see!


M-Audio Audiophile 24-96 input.. what were they thinking?

Reply #24 –
Thanks for participating rysw. Your values are very close to the ones that I had in mind (if I were to build this particular attenuator). I was thinking of say 1.5k series and 3.3k parallel to give approx 5k input resistance, 1k output resistance and about 3.3dB attenuation.

Quote
Resistors are cheap - so suck it and see!

Yes but something subtle like the effect of the loading (attenuator input resistance) on the THD of the pre-amp might not be easily picked up with a casual measurement. For me this is the trickiest part of the whole trade-off. Many op-amps can drive line-out levels into 600 ohms easy enough but those same op-amps usually have their (often prodigious) THD specification quoted with a 10K load. I suspect distortion levels get worse with lower load resistance but I have a hard time finding any datasheets which actually show distortion verus load resistance. So I’m usually pretty cautious of going too low with resistor values, even though (as you mentioned) lower output resistance is better for both low noise and for driving capacitance.

In any case you of course place the attenuator at the receiver end of the cable so it’s unlikely to be seeing any more than about 50pF capacitance. So even with say your figures and an output resistance of 1.5k you’re still only looking at a time constant of around 75 ns, or maybe even less. The thermal noise contribution of 1.5k over the audio bandwidth is only about 700nV, which by my calculation is somewhere about  -125 dB relative to the preamp output level. So basically I agree with those choices, it’s a good compromise between loading resistance and output resistance.