Skip to main content

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI (Read 9449 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

I was using all along a SoundBlaster 128 PCI (CT4750). It is a damn good soundcard. Although I don't understand that much about soundcards, it has only a few channels, it outputs "pure" 44.1kHz and it has a 8W RMS amplifier. This last feature really kick rocks because my speakers actually don't need to be amplified. However, this is ancient hardware, back from 1994 I believe. It served good all along this way.

Today I acquired a SoundBlaster Audigy SE (SB0570). I read that it is 7.1 and it can manipulate audio at 24/96 no problem. However, the first thing I missed was the built-in amplifier...

What is the best decision? To keep the old PCI without having to use amplified speakers, or to move on to audigy for the sake of new technology and recording stuff (I might want to rip a vinyl one day or something like that), and get an amplified speaker system?

Thanks for any input.

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

Reply #1
Stay with the 128 PCI and record in 16/44. Why change a running system?

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

Reply #2
Well, the SB 128 tests i have been able to find look pretty good, so this seems to be a good sound card, like you said.

The Audigy SE was the value model of the series, and I haven't found much conclusive data about it. I do know that those models do resampling, so if you output 44khz it software resamples it to 48Khz. That may not matter that much, though. From what i did find it seems that the older one may be better.

You could run RMAA on both cards and decide for yourself which one is better. If you do run rmaa remember the 8w can most likely fry your input at high levels.

The other point I can make is that a 8 W rms amplifier with a noisy power supply such as a computer one is unlikely to be the best solution, since it would be impossible to filter the supply adequately. On the other hand the difference might be imperceptible, at low power at least.

The bottom line is, even if the differences (between the cards) are there, they are probably below the hearing thresholds of most people, so you are left with the speakers as the weakest link in the system.

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

Reply #3
Thanks for the input.

I think I am going to keep the 128 PCI.
Nothing outside the 2.0 amuses me more, so I don't need the other features.

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

Reply #4
The CT4750 is not as good as you think by far. It has long since been left behind in terms of audio performance. This was a budget PCI card 10 years ago after all.

These cards were originally designed by Ensoniq, a company which was acquired by Creative in '97/'98 or so. I think there were two different basic designs, a slightly older and more upscale one with an ES1370 chip, 22.5792 MHz crystal (44.1 kHz operation) and a little I2S codec from AKM with decent performance for the day (Ensoniq AudioPCI, Soundblaster 64 PCI, I think there also was a Creative version running at 48 kHz later), and a newer and more budget-oriented one with ES1371, 24.576 MHz crystal (48 kHz operation) and an AC97 codec, which spawned a whole lot of different Creative budget cards with ES1371, ES1373 and CT5880.

The basic design actually was quite sensible, I always liked the headphone amplifier (using a 4565 opamp) that would automatically engage on the AudioPCI 64V for example. RMAA shows somewhat small coupling capacitors though. I still have the "noble version" (44.1 kHz and AKM codec) in a Pentium 133 system here, unfortunately recording is broken in the Windows NT drivers and only captures one channel, which is a pity (those used to be recommended as a budget recording card back in the day).

I wonder how the CT4750 would be driving passive speakers now, since on pictures of the card I can't spot anything remotely able to put out a few watts! Getting decent volume out of that puny little headphone amp stage (maybe 100 mAp-p) would require rather efficient speakers indeed, and I wouldn't bet on the frequency response being anything like it should be.

Besides, the card is most probably running at 48 kHz (so 44.1 kHz material needs resampling, which these don't do in particularly exciting quality), at least the crystal on a picture of the card seems to be labeled 24.15G2 or somesuch, which would point towards 24.576 MHz. It also has one of those craptacular Sigmatel AC97 codecs as they were common back in the day (e.g. SB Live!).

Enter the Audigy SE. While still a budget card and not perfect by any means, technically it is a big step up from the lowly SB 128 PCI. You get some real A/D and D/A converters of rather decent quality indeed (if invariably implementation limited, D/A more so than A/D), and sample rates are either 48 or 96 kHz, manually selected. It is the cheapest card you'll find that I'd recommend for doing serious recording on. Of course the thriftiness in terms of components (capacitors in particular) means that the output isn't as clean as it could be, and it's known to run out of steam in the bass department with low-impedance headphones for the same reason, plus the driver can be a little cranky. Of course you still want decent-quality software resampling for CD material, too. Once you're aware of all the little ifs and buts, however, you can achieve rather good results. (One of those is that you should pay the EAX console a visit after installing the apps and drivers in Win2k/XP. Chances are some stupid effect is enabled there, which should be turned off. I recommend the 1.04.0077 drivers.)

I had to jump through some hoops in order to get my 24-bit recording on the preceding but rather similar Live! 24-Bit model, but that was partly due to using Win2k (which seems to be 16-bit-only for MME and DSound) and not having any decent recording software. On XP it should merely be a matter of using the line-in plugin for Winamp plus disk writer output. An ASIO-enabled custom build of Audacity plus ASIO4All got the problem sorted here (even though the former was an adventure in itself, since it had to take place on the very same Win2k machine and thus with an outdated compiler and platform SDK...).

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

Reply #5
The other point I can make is that a 8 W rms amplifier with a noisy power supply such as a computer one is unlikely to be the best solution, since it would be impossible to filter the supply adequately.


That is nonsense disguised as engineering advice. Esoteric DAC designs are sold with the same type of argument. Look at cards like the Asus Xonar XT or products from Lynx. Even without any metal cage or something comparable, more ore less barenaked within the electromagnetic thunderstorm, they deliver a SNR of -120dB and more. That's in the realm of the best standalone DACs.

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

Reply #6
Yep, ground layers rule.  (Those, and low-noise voltage regulators...) That being said, how likely are you to have both a modern-day high-power graphics card (EMI generator / supply polluter) and a high-end sound card installed side by side?

PS to my last post: Provided there still is a free PCI slot in the machine, I'd just plug in the SE in addition. Can't have too many sound cards really  (OK, I admit the 3rd one in my main rig is more for grins and filling up a useless ISA slot, but still, the other two do get used, one for recording and the other for playback.)

Oh, and could it be that the OP's card is actually a CT4700? This one *does* have a power amp, and it comes with the AKM codec and a 22.5792 MHz crystal for 44.1 kHz operation to boot. The difference from that one to the Audigy SE on CD material may not be all that great. I'd still rather use the latter for recording though, it's always possible to resampling to 16/44 later.

Or maybe it's one of the CT4810 variants? At least part of those shipped with a TDA1517P amplifier chip installed. What a mess. Makes the current Creative product palette seem neat and tidy.

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

Reply #7
stephan_g,

Been months I didn't come here. Paid attention to your answer just yesterday.
Well, the card I have is a 4700 for sure, because it had the amplifier with LM chip.
However, in ALSA, it showed up as Ensoniq ES1370 and in XP days it was labelled as CT4750, so this misunderstanding is solved.
But it's definitely the CT4700 by its construction you can tell. It's not the 4810, because the amplifier IC is not from TDA series.

I ditched the AudigySE Value after a few tests because of its weak output.

Right now I have purchased a Sound Blaster Live! CT4760, the one with gold connectors.
I went for it because the 128 PCI can't work on Windows 7 for the life of me, and it also stopped working on Linux after I installed a VGA card (HD 3870).

Does this CT4760 resample it all to 48kHz?

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

Reply #8
Well if you already bought the new sound card, i would suggest adding a discrete amplifier. You can go small, like with a pro-ject amp box, or you can buy any full-blown integrated (with volume knob) or power amplifier (if you use software volume control.)

I don't think you're going to find a good powerful amplifier on any sound card, unless you're talking about a headphone amp. But if you really don't want a separate amp unit, you can always swap your speakers for powered studio monitors, which have built-in amps.

 

SoundBlaster Audigy SE vs. SoundBlaster 128 PCI

Reply #9
The other point I can make is that a 8 W rms amplifier with a noisy power supply such as a computer one is unlikely to be the best solution, since it would be impossible to filter the supply adequately.


That is nonsense disguised as engineering advice. Esoteric DAC designs are sold with the same type of argument. Look at cards like the Asus Xonar XT or products from Lynx. Even without any metal cage or something comparable, more ore less barenaked within the electromagnetic thunderstorm, they deliver a SNR of -120dB and more. That's in the realm of the best standalone DACs.


+1 to all that.

The negative comment about the 12 volt supply in computers is equally false.  It's not that the 12 volt suppy in computers is all that wonderful, but the power supplies for hi fi power amps are generally even worse.

Some people will rag on  the PV's 12 volt power because its a switchmode power supply, but being switchmode means that its ripple is way above the audible range and relatively easy to filter. The hot new thing in audio power amps for professional use  is switchmode power supplies. I've some of them in consumer gear as well.