EMU 1212M gives Lynx Two a run for its money
Mar 31, 2004 at 8:25 PM Post #16 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy
Glassman, you have a weird misconception about how clocks work. (I've noticed you make similar comments in a number of threads.) You only need one clock to handle all reasonable sample rates (44.1, 48, etc.).

This is a pro card and it almost certainly can handle 44.1 kHz audio without resampling.


misconception? look at the card - there's just 24.576MHz crystal, which corresponds with 512fs for 48kHz, 256fs for 96kHz and 128fs for 192kHz, you can't get 44.1kHz or it's multiples unless there's some PLL somewhere, which is highly unprobable.. knowing how EMU DSPs always worked I believe it's the same story again.. if you look at any card which can handle both 44.1kHz and 48kHz natively, you'll find two oscilators.. RME, Envy24 based cards etc..

this is a pro card and it is almost certainly supposed to work with 192kHz.. after recording and editing in this sample rate you can resample down to 44.1kHz for CD in software..
 
Mar 31, 2004 at 8:33 PM Post #17 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Glassman
you can't get 44.1kHz or it's multiples unless there's some PLL somewhere, which is highly unprobable..


A PLL is highly probable. You pick a multiple of the highest frequency you need to deal with and use that for the master clock, then ratchet it down with a PLL to all the frequencies you need to use.
 
Mar 31, 2004 at 8:49 PM Post #18 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Wodgy
A PLL is highly probable. You pick a multiple of the highest frequency you need to deal with and use that for the master clock, then ratchet it down with a PLL to all the frequencies you need to use.


this is where we don't agree with each other.. however, we won't find the truth unless we ask EMU engineer
wink.gif
 
Mar 31, 2004 at 9:49 PM Post #19 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Glassman
this is where we don't agree with each other.. however, we won't find the truth unless we ask EMU engineer
wink.gif


Hi Glassman, this is for you, taken from RMAA Forum.
Quote:

***There is no resampling in the Digital Audio Systems I/O, DSP signal paths and ASIO implementation. The only time resampling could happen in a Digital Audio System is if a WDM consumer application that has no notion of sample rate serves us up data that doesn't match the current sample rate. When this happens WDM driver mechanisms will silently SRC(sample rate convert) the audio so that it will just play.

Best,
ICHi
E-MU Systems


And here...
Quote:

***Clarification for Mr. Fixup. If you look a little more carefully you will see that the 2 crystals used in the Digital Audio Systems are.
(24.576MHz) For 48kHz Clock
(22.579MHz) For 44.1kHz Clock

There is also a PLL (Phase Lock Loop) for external word clock.

Best,
ICHi
E-MU Systems



[Edited] Bold the QUOTE.
 
Mar 31, 2004 at 9:53 PM Post #20 of 58
And here is the reply from fixup who have the same doubt with you (at that time).
Quote:

I looked again and, you were right, there were two small 49.152 and 45.158 crystals. Very sorry for my mistake, but the two big ones (24.576) caught my eyes first.



[Edited] fixed the Bold.
 
Mar 31, 2004 at 10:36 PM Post #21 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Dreamer
Because the clock modules are of the same type seen on cheaper m-audio or creative cards, which have been measured to have much higher jitter than the other cards I cited.


I would say this is subjective. If the circuit design well, it will reduce the jitter.
 
Mar 31, 2004 at 11:23 PM Post #22 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by yeeyy
I would say this is subjective. If the circuit design well, it will reduce the jitter.


Sure it is subjective, but lower-end parts are lower end parts. You could make a JRC5532 sound up to it's full capability or an OPA627 sound really bad, but in the average implementation the OPA will sound better. It is about how high the performance ceiling is, and the parts on this card have a lower performance ceiling than those of the Lnyx, RME, et al. Therefore it is reasonable to suspect the EMU card will have a lower actual performance as well.
 
Mar 31, 2004 at 11:55 PM Post #24 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by genefid
Iron_Dreamer - why so negative on a card that you haven't even heard?


I'm not trying to bash this card, I was simply pointing out a design characteristic that lead me to belive this card may not sound as good as it could. I am sure it is a very good card, but it remains to be seen where it fits into the overall picture. Looking at the hardware of it I am not toally sold on this card being the next greatest thing on the block. I guess hearing will have to be believing for all of us. I can't wait to hear some actual impressions.
 
Apr 1, 2004 at 7:47 AM Post #25 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Dreamer
Therefore it is reasonable to suspect the EMU card will have a lower actual performance as well.


Just curious, when you mentioned actual performance, how you define that? By RMAA measurement or Audio Precision measurement?
 
Apr 1, 2004 at 9:49 AM Post #26 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by yeeyy
Just curious, when you mentioned actual performance, how you define that? By RMAA measurement or Audio Precision measurement?


I mean by actually hearing it. RMAA is good for diagnosing problems, not so good for predicting audio quality. I mean the Revo tests better than the RME in RMAA, however I doubt much of anyone would think it actually sounds better. Based on the EMU's RMAA tests, it could be better, but we will ahve to wait for someone to compare them to find out for sure.
 
Apr 1, 2004 at 1:44 PM Post #27 of 58
Iron_dreamer you did tests of the card on 16/44 which limits the actual dynamic range of the cards, test the card on 24/96 and you will get the true picture of what the cards are capable of.

This is probably because 16/44 is limited to 96 db of DR.
 
Apr 1, 2004 at 10:35 PM Post #28 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by Iron_Dreamer
I mean by actually hearing it.


How you determine the jitter measurement by hearing?

Anyway, listening is subjective, that is more about preference rather than sound quality.
 
Apr 1, 2004 at 10:44 PM Post #29 of 58
Quote:

Originally posted by yeeyy
How you determine the jitter measurement by hearing?

Anyway, listening is subjective, that is more about preference rather than sound quality.


Less jitter = better sound.

Yes listening is subjective, however it is possible to determine that two products have a roughly equal sound quality (e.g. V6 vs HD280) yet one might be much mroe preferable to one person, and another to another.

If you don't believe in judgeing products by how they sound, instead of only how they measure, you are at the wrong site. Go over to hydrogenaudio, I'm sure they'll love you there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top