Poor sound resulting from PC upgrade?

[Holly.Teacakes]

^ n00b ^

Hello, how are---well, enough with the small talk.

I recently bought a "new" notebook PC (HP dv4000 on Windows XP), which for me was an upgrade from a Dell Inspiron 5000 running on Windows 98 SE--a machine I used for piles upon piles of audio editing and general noodling around with DC-Art32. (I effen' love[d] using it.) Anyway, since the upgrade to this HP, which came with a SoundMAX Integrated Digital Audio sound card (driver version 5.12.1.5240), DC-Art sounds like mud. Literally. And no amount of tweaking either the program or the SoundMAX Control Panel attains any improvement. A WAV will sound fine in, say, Windows Media Player, but opening the same file in DC-Art32 renders what sounds a bit like a compressed MP3 sent through a forgiving lowpass filter; hardly suitable for reliable equalization. I've tried updating the SoundMAX driver, but apparently I have got the latest one, so that's no good.

Being relatively computer illiterate at the time, I never noted what kind of soundcard my old Dell had. My uneducated suspicion is that this mess has something to do with the way the two OS versions, 98 and XP, handle the DC-Art32 program.

Is there a fix for this, or should I just find something else to work with? (I REALLY would like to continue using this program.)

[Craig Maier]

I have never tried to run DCArt 32 on XP; the program was developed well before the XP operating system. So, I really do not know how it behaves in that environment. Perhaps someone else here has had some experience with it and can share with you.

On the other hand, it is probably time to think about upgrading to DCArt32's much younger brother, DC6 which is designed for XP. It has many more features and much higher performance capabilities compared to DCArt 32. A discounted upgrade price is available for upgrades. You can check it out at our online store located at:

www.diamondcut.com

[cromag]

I'm using an IBM ThinkCentre desktop running Windows XP -- it also has integrated SoundMax audio. I was using DCart32 until upgrading to DC-6 earlier this year.

DCart32 worked perfectly for me, so whatever problem you're having now is probably not due to either the XP OS or SoundMax.

I upgraded for improved functionality, not because 32 didn't work.

[Craig Maier]

Thanks Cromag - - - I learned something today. It is interesting that DCArt32 does indeed work on XP! It looks like DCArt 32 has had a very long and healthy career, so to speak.

[Craig Maier]

Holly.Teacakes -

Does your new system play the DCArt32 Demo Wavefile allright? I think that would be a very good place to start. let us know.

[DougMac]

^ n00b ^

Hello, how are---well, enough with the small talk.

...hardly suitable for reliable equalization.


Is there a fix for this, or should I just find something else to work with? (I REALLY would like to continue using this program.)

I guess I'm conservative, but I don't think I'd trust a built in sound card on either a notebook or desktop for anything other than casual playback. There are good sound cards available with USB or Firewire connections. You might want to check into that if you're doing any recording for restoration.

Doug

[Craig Maier]

I will second Doug's assertion. Most motherboard soundcards (actually, they are just chips or a chipset) simply emulate in firmware the higher sampling rates like 96 KHz and 192 KHz. Also, they seem to emulate in firmware 24 bit resolution and really are just 16 bit systems.

At least, that is my experience from testing, but may not be universally true. Certainly, most of us have seen that S/N (signal to noise ratio) performance is compromised with this sort of "soundcard". They seem to be good for casual listening, but probably not high performance audio restoration work.

[cromag]

I can't really give any personal experience with regard to the on-board sound "card" and its recording capabilities, since I don't use it to record. I was concerned about the potential quality issues, but recording also tends to be pretty processor-intensive and I didn't want to tie up my computer.

I use a stand-alone DVD recorder that is also capable of recording to CD-Rs and CD-RWs.

If I don't plan to clean up the recordings -- story tapes for the kids, spoken word recordings that I want to listen to in the car, etc. -- I record direct to a CD-R. If I'm recording something I want to clean up for my music library I record to a CD-RW and "rip" it into the computer. And it uses the less expensive "data" CD-Rs -- I assume because it only has a single drive and can't make direct digital copies.

I'm still not sure this is a true audiophile solution. I sometimes think I hear a very faint, high pitched whine when the recorder starts recording, etc, but it cleans up very well, and I'm happy.

The recorder I use was a little less than $200 when I bought it, about two years ago. The same model, with updated firmware, is now readily available for under $100, so it's economical.

It does have some drawbacks as a DVD recorder, but I've been using it without a hitch.

[Dan McDonald]

I was thinking that the on-board sound only made a difference in recording (as long as it is capable of playing the files and giving a reasonable sound quality). Is that right?

I use a 3.6 gHz for restoration work, and it has on-board sound. I use an old 466 or something like that for recording, with a very nice sound card. I then transfer to the fast computer for restoration. I've never noticed any issues and never thought much about it since I figured that a computer working on a file shouldn't do anything except whatever you tell it, no matter what kind of sound card it has. Would that make a difference in restoration?

Dan

[Craig Maier]

Certainly, after the initial recording (transfer) is made, the soundcard is out of the direct signal pathway, but it is in a tangential pathway. Recording with one computer having a good soundcard and restoring on another with a marginal one may seem logical on the surface.

However -

My thinking is that the restoration can only be as good as the settings that are established as determined by how one hears their effect on the signal during restoration. If that is so, then the playback / monitoring / previewing system soundcard would make a difference on a higher order basis.

[Dan McDonald]

That could be, although I really can't hear any noise or distortion on this one. I guess what you're saying is that if it affects the sound in certain ways, I'd restore to account for the distortion, which makes sense. Well, maybe I need to look into a separate sound card for this one.

Thanks Craig

Dan

[Geebster]

I'm so happy that I have analog ears! That is, my hearing is such that I can't tell a noticeable difference between good analog recordings vs. state of the art digital ones. The same holds true for sound cards. I do have a rather nice sound card in one of my PC's, but it's mainly to do restoration work at a higher resolution... Not so my ears are happy, but because it makes finding "noises" a bit easier than using "junk" sound cards.

Being slightly hearing impaired can have it's advantages.

GB..

[Craig Maier]

I think that the differences in quality are generally subtle but sometimes discernable. If you want to measure and quantify these differences, there is a Diamond Cut Application Note called "AN2, Using DC5 or DC Live6/Forensics to Test Your Sound Card's Performance." It can be found at the following link:

http://www.diamondcut.com/AppNotes.htm