 |
 |
Yes, that's what I'm talking about, the old Ensoniq card, with the Ensoniq chip on it. It runs fine on my Win2K box, using Soundblaster's current drivers for their "Ensoniq Live PCI" card. Very nice audio, same old DSP and construction just newer drivers. Only funky thing is that connections labelled on card are not labelled same in the new version of the mixer app. Seems to be a trend with Soundblaster. Doesn't Creative make the EMU professional cards? Why can't they port over some expertise? Anyway, I apologize for drifting this off-topic since the guy who asked the original question doesn't have a Soundblaster card. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Richter" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] circuit noise > Tom Fine wrote: > > > 4. The situation I described above with the Soundblaster card was also true > > with my old Dell 4100 box I used to use for video, so it seems to be a > > standard problem with that card, either all of them or my specific unit. As > > I said, no problems with an older/cheaper Ensoniq card in my workshop > > computer, which is a homebrew amalgam of castoff parts and is probably very > > noisy and hashy inside since it's in tight quarters and has two extra > > cooling fans, a separate IDE card, 4 hard drives and a CD burner. That > > Ensoniq problem has no issues going unbalanced out to the unbalanced in of > > my preamp in the workshop. Since the speakers for that system are right over > > my workbench, I hear hum and hash loud and clear if there is any. So, again, > > I'd say it's bad manufacturing practice on the part of some or many card > > makers that lead to this assertion that quiet audio _can't_ come from an > > internal card. > > A few years ago, Creative bought Ensoniq. They butchered the circuitry > for the "Live Value" and degraded it somewhat for the "Live". The > original Ensoniq PCI Audio was a superb card for general use and a > remarkable bargain at about $25. Unfortunately, the Win2K drivers were > poor and it's hopeless in XP. So much for 'progress'. > > Mike > -- > [log in to unmask] > http://www.mrichter.com/