24bit Line-in Recording: Portable Recorder or Laptop + Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi?

[darkarn]

Hi! I am interested in doing line-in recordings and I need something portable. After realising that my laptop (using Realtek ALC892) could do only 16bit/192khz recordings, I decided to research more and had the following options.
 
Option 1: Portable Recorder (Zoom H1)
I read that they can do up to 24bit/96khz and very portable. Problem is, a SD card can never hold as much as a laptop. I was a little uncomfortable with it converting all recordings to WAV immediately (unlike the laptop which allows me to record everything in Audacity, which I could then edit and then turn them into FLACs.)
 
Option 2: Laptop with Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi HD
I also noticed that it could do 24bit/96khz. I am considering it as it allows me to record everything in Audacity, which I could then edit and then turn them into FLACs (unlike option 1). But I am hearing reports that Creative is getting bad to worse...?
 
Option 3: Laptop with ALC892, using Microsoft's drivers AND USB DAC+Amp Combo
Based on this thread elsewhere that I have just read, I realised that my laptop could actually do 24bit/192khz recordings, but required me to lose the usage of some of my onboard speakers after changing to Microsoft's drivers. Also, since I can only afford one of these, I am going to get the DAC in this option and use it to help with the recording.
 
Hence, what I really need help in is knowing which option provides the best quality. Or rather, am I making sense in deciding these (still quite new to the audio scene here)
 
Thanks!

 

[darkarn]

Bumping this; is this the right place to ask such questions too?

 

[Roller]

Can you plug the recorder to the computer and use it as a line-in device or do you have to use it as an exclusively portable device by itself?
 
Also, the Creative X-Fi Surround 5.1 (non "Pro" version) would suit your needs acceptably within an entry budget.
 
I find that the latest Recon3D products are very much a joke, especially when compared with the X-Fi Titanium HD that's on the same level as the Asus Xonar Essence STX.
 
Another option for you could be the Creative X-Fi HD USB, but there are some crystal clock inconsistencies that won't give you as much format flexibility as the X-Fi Surround 5.1, even though the X-Fi HD USB is of higher quality.

 

[darkarn]

Quote:

Can you plug the recorder to the computer and use it as a line-in device or do you have to use it as an exclusively portable device by itself?
 
Also, the Creative X-Fi Surround 5.1 (non "Pro" version) would suit your needs acceptably within an entry budget.
 
I find that the latest Recon3D products are very much a joke, especially when compared with the X-Fi Titanium HD that's on the same level as the Asus Xonar Essence STX.
 
Another option for you could be the Creative X-Fi HD USB, but there are some crystal clock inconsistencies that won't give you as much format flexibility as the X-Fi Surround 5.1, even though the X-Fi HD USB is of higher quality.

1. Apparently, if you plug the Zoom H2n to the computer via USB, you can only record 16bit/48khz. This is not the case if you use it as a portable device (i.e. 24bit/96khz).
 
2. The non-Pro version is not sold here; but however, it is priced like a entry-level card though (70 USD)
 
3. I did not even consider the Recon3Ds; their specs alone made me consider something else...
 
4. I did consider the Creative X-Fi HD USB too, but it was a little expensive (since I also want to get a portable DAC/amp too)
 
 
 

 

[Roller]

Quote:

1. Apparently, if you plug the Zoom H2n to the computer via USB, you can only record 16bit/48khz. This is not the case if you use it as a portable device (i.e. 24bit/96khz).
 
2. The non-Pro version is not sold here; but however, it is priced like a entry-level card though (70 USD)
 
3. I did not even consider the Recon3Ds; their specs alone made me consider something else...
 
4. I did consider the Creative X-Fi HD USB too, but it was a little expensive (since I also want to get a portable DAC/amp too)
 

 
That's odd. Does the manufacturer provide drivers that expand the device's capabilities once it's connected to a computer? For instance, the entry X-Fi Go supports 16/48 without drivers but with drivers supports 24/48 along with the software package that allows for further sound tweaking.
 
Yes, usually the non-Pro versions are more expensive and for good reason, but it's always unfortunate that they're higher priced.
 
Don't even consider the Recon3D series, they're usage is for a niche market.
 
The X-Fi HD USB does have a better ADC, which would certainly allow for higher quality recordings, so that's an option to consider, since recording is a main consideration.

 

[darkarn]

Quote:

That's odd. Does the manufacturer provide drivers that expand the device's capabilities once it's connected to a computer? For instance, the entry X-Fi Go supports 16/48 without drivers but with drivers supports 24/48 along with the software package that allows for further sound tweaking.
 
Yes, usually the non-Pro versions are more expensive and for good reason, but it's always unfortunate that they're higher priced.
 
Don't even consider the Recon3D series, they're usage is for a niche market.
 
The X-Fi HD USB does have a better ADC, which would certainly allow for higher quality recordings, so that's an option to consider, since recording is a main consideration.

1. Nope; there are no drivers at all...
2. How do I see whether the device has a "better" ADC or DAC?
 
On a side note, I have done some sample recordings using Options 1 and 3 (without a DAC/amp) and saved them as Audacity project files; how do I analyse which one is the "better" recording?
 

 

[germanium]

Recording above 24bit/96KHz is worthless. It creates huge files with no gain in resolution from the human hearing point of view. Not even people that can hear into the ultrasonic range can benefit from sound above 96KHz sample rate & most people don't hear above 17KHz sounds  &that fits in the 44.1KHz sample rate. Some people say 16 bit is all that is needed for bit depth & in most cases I agree though on wide dynamic range stuff 24 bit may be beneficial Though modern DAC's handle 16 bit recordings pretty well compared to older ladder type DAC's, audible distortion doesn't seem to creep in until about -80db compared to -60db on older ladder type DAC's. minus 80db is enough that in almost all cases you will not hear it due to being so soft by that point you would have a very hard time even hearing the desired signal. 24 bit totally obliterated even that distortion but in most cases the music never approaches the level that distortion is a problem even with 16 bit recordings.

 

[Roller]

Higher bit depth? Most definitely recommended, especially if it's to be used for recording, more leeway is always desired. Sample rate, like germanium said, doesn't really need (or should) to go beyond 96KHz. There was a rather interesting discussion around here between high profile members of the audio community that reached the conclusion the ideal sample rate was between 48 and 96KHz.
 
For how much can you get the X-Fi HD?

 

[germanium]

If you are recording straight to stereo with out any mixdown then 16 bit is enough in most cases with modern digital recording & playback systems but when mixing down yes you need more bits due to noise being additive, even in the digital  world. The final product can be dithered down to 16 bit for release with little if any audible degradation.

 

[darkarn]

Quote:

Recording above 24bit/96KHz is worthless. It creates huge files with no gain in resolution from the human hearing point of view. Not even people that can hear into the ultrasonic range can benefit from sound above 96KHz sample rate & most people don't hear above 17KHz sounds  &that fits in the 44.1KHz sample rate. Some people say 16 bit is all that is needed for bit depth & in most cases I agree though on wide dynamic range stuff 24 bit may be beneficial Though modern DAC's handle 16 bit recordings pretty well compared to older ladder type DAC's, audible distortion doesn't seem to creep in until about -80db compared to -60db on older ladder type DAC's. minus 80db is enough that in almost all cases you will not hear it due to being so soft by that point you would have a very hard time even hearing the desired signal. 24 bit totally obliterated even that distortion but in most cases the music never approaches the level that distortion is a problem even with 16 bit recordings.

Hmmm... I thought that I needed as high quality as possible when doing such archival recordings, hence my wanting for 192KHz. And I guess this explains why I felt better with 24 bit recordings (did some samples); how do I know if this is a placebo effect?
 
Quote:

Higher bit depth? Most definitely recommended, especially if it's to be used for recording, more leeway is always desired. Sample rate, like germanium said, doesn't really need (or should) to go beyond 96KHz. There was a rather interesting discussion around here between high profile members of the audio community that reached the conclusion the ideal sample rate was between 48 and 96KHz.
 
For how much can you get the X-Fi HD?

Do you have the link to the thread? I cannot find it...
 
And the X-Fi HD is around 120 USD.
Quote:

If you are recording straight to stereo with out any mixdown then 16 bit is enough in most cases with modern digital recording & playback systems but when mixing down yes you need more bits due to noise being additive, even in the digital  world. The final product can be dithered down to 16 bit for release with little if any audible degradation.

I was aiming for something like that; if my PMPs can handle only 16 bit, I can just downmix it, while still able to listen to the 24 bit version on my laptop.

 

[Roller]

Quote:

Hmmm... I thought that I needed as high quality as possible when doing such archival recordings, hence my wanting for 192KHz. And I guess this explains why I felt better with 24 bit recordings (did some samples); how do I know if this is a placebo effect?
 
Do you have the link to the thread? I cannot find it...
 
And the X-Fi HD is around 120 USD.
I was aiming for something like that; if my PMPs can handle only 16 bit, I can just downmix it, while still able to listen to the 24 bit version on my laptop.

I'm going to try to find it as it's been a long time since I last read it.
 
A good way to test for placebo is to do ABX testing. It's better to play on the safe side and just record at 24bits to avoid any sort of undesired noise floor.
 
And I think if you look further, you can find the X-Fi HD at a lower price.

 

[darkarn]

Quote:

I'm going to try to find it as it's been a long time since I last read it.
 
A good way to test for placebo is to do ABX testing. It's better to play on the safe side and just record at 24bits to avoid any sort of undesired noise floor.
 
And I think if you look further, you can find the X-Fi HD at a lower price.

Thanks! Time for me to read up on ABX testing...
 
I have yet to test out the frequency too (i.e. 96KHz v.s. 192KHz) though; was told that the 192 is more for pure digital recording (which is not what I am planning to do)
 
As for X-Fi HD, I can't for now; gotta look around more (am more comfortable with brick-and-mortar shops than online shops when it comes to this)
However, I am going to consider the X-Fi as a last option; recalled that I had to go back to onboard audio due to the card giving me bizarre BSODs.

 

[darkarn]

I think I will have to test the Creative stuff over the weekend to really decide on this; could only get either the DAC/amp or Creative.
 
In the meantime, I have some sample recordings for Option 1 and Option 3 (without DAC). May I know how to "see" from Audacity which recordings is better?

 

[gryph0n]

May I suggest a look at the Emu 0204 ?  Its a decently spec'ed (24/192) external USB ADC & DAC. Retails for around $120 on Amazon

 

[Roller]

Quote:

May I suggest a look at the Emu 0204 ?  Its a decently spec'ed (24/192) external USB ADC & DAC. Retails for around $120 on Amazon

Good suggestion. As a Creative separate pro audio division, E-MU makes great gear, and would suit the OP's needs quite well, likely better than the X-Fi HD for the same price.