RE: [linrad] Re: M-Audio Audiophile 192 Soundcard

["G0RUZ Conrad" <conrad@xxxxxxxxx>]

Conrad G0RUZ

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Robert McGwier
> Sent: 12 January 2005 15:10
> To: linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [linrad] Re: M-Audio Audiophile 192 Soundcard
>
>
> Alberto:
>
> Yes I have tested the Lynx L-22, M-Audiophile USB, and the
> M-Audiophile 192 using RMAA and other tools.  RMAA is nice since
> it builds a web page automatically for the results.  I will put
> these on my web site and then post a note.  I do not have the
> Delta 44 results here, they are probably at work.  If I cannot
> find them, it will be somewhat difficult to do them again instantly
> since the Delta 44's are in Linux machines and all are in use.
> I will get to it eventually.  I will re-post shortly but the
> bottom line is this:
>
> The Delta 44 was the best.  The M-Audiophile USB was second and
> the M-Audiophile 192 was third in noise floor.  The 192 had
> increased crosstalk out near the upper edge.  The M-Audiophile
> USB noise floor and dynamic range were both 5 dB better than
> the 192.
>
> I will have to look to see what I did the wider sampling rates.
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Alberto di Bene
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:41 PM
> To: linrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [linrad] Re: M-Audio Audiophile 192 Soundcard
>
>
> Jeffrey, Bob, Stan and Conrad,
>
>   thanks for your investigations and considerations about the Audiophile
> 192 sound card.
> Bob, I seem to recall that you performed some extensive tests on the
> Delta 44 comparing it
> to other cards. Do you have any data to back up or to deny my  suspect
> that it has a fixed
> cut off frequency in its anti alias input filter? Does Linrad use it at
> 96 kHz sampling rate?
> What are the results?
>
> A second (and last) question to you all. Am I right in saying the 4
> input channels are needed
> only if you want to use x-pol antennas ? Or are there other
> circumstances where having 4 input
> channels can be of benefit ?  Thanks.
>
> 73  Alberto  I2PHD (Trying to understand whether buying today a Delta 44
> is a good move...)
>
>
> Robert McGwier wrote:
>
> >I spoke to them and to OSS (4Front) they were not terribly helpful.
> >When I started OSS it called it a Delta 44 equivalent.  It did not work.
> >
> >The other problem as I see it is that the voltage range it covers is very
> >large indeed.  The Delta 44, Lynx L22, etc. sport two ranges -10dBv and
> >+4dBu (the latter being larger).  The Audiophile has a much larger peak
> >to peak voltage range than +4dBu.  This means modifications would be
> >required to interface to a particular piece of hardware such as WSE,
> >SDR-1000, etc. to do anything that approaches using the dynamic range of
> >the A/D's properly.  Gerald Youngblood, AC5OG, purchased one with the
> >hopes that it would do a good job with his SDR-1000.  I am uncertain
> >what he thinks about it now.
> >
> >For $200 or less, it is stil hard to beat the Delta 44.
> >
> >Bob
> >N4HY
> >
> >
> >
> >.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>


LINRADDARNIL