VideoHelp Forum


Try StreamFab All-in-One and rip streaming video! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16
Thread
  1. I don't care how expensive it is. I just need to know if there exists anywhere a soundcard with line-in port, that can capture at 384kHz. Preferably a USB sound device not PCi-e.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    A google search took 2 seconds to type: https://www.google.com/search?q=sound+card+384khz

    Though, that level of oversampling is well beyond helpful with the law of diminishing returns. All you are getting is MUCH larger files. Hope you like paying for more drive space.


    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  3. DECEASED
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heaven
    Search Comp PM
    "Like this facility, I don't exist."
    Quote Quote  
  4. Interesting read. I don't want to get into arguments about the merits of sample rates and resolution but it may amuse you to know that many years ago I worked on the design of an audio sampling system running at about 250KHz. It was part of a system that slowed the sound speed by about 15 times to investigate tiny instantaneous changes in waveform, much as described in the link in post #3. I spent ages trying to eliminate a regular waveform that showed in the analysis and could be heard as a background tone in the slowed recordings, believing it to be either a mathematical error or fault in the electronics. Eventually it dawned on me that the waveform was actually present at the audio input and it was the carrier signal (not the audio you hear) from a local AM radio station. It was actually digitizing the the RF waveform!

    Brian.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    boston
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by betwixt View Post
    Interesting read. I don't want to get into arguments about the merits of sample rates and resolution but it may amuse you to know that many years ago I worked on the design of an audio sampling system running at about 250KHz. It was part of a system that slowed the sound speed by about 15 times to investigate tiny instantaneous changes in waveform, much as described in the link in post #3. I spent ages trying to eliminate a regular waveform that showed in the analysis and could be heard as a background tone in the slowed recordings, believing it to be either a mathematical error or fault in the electronics. Eventually it dawned on me that the waveform was actually present at the audio input and it was the carrier signal (not the audio you hear) from a local AM radio station. It was actually digitizing the the RF waveform!

    Brian.
    Thank you for the clarification. I didn't think about it.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    boston
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    A google search took 2 seconds to type: https://www.google.com/search?q=sound+card+384khz

    Though, that level of oversampling is well beyond helpful with the law of diminishing returns. All you are getting is MUCH larger files. Hope you like paying for more drive space.


    Scott
    For me, too, a more acceptable idea is to reduce the file size. Now many developers minimize this indicator to speed up programs and minimize file size.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    A google search took 2 seconds to type: https://www.google.com/search?q=sound+card+384khz

    Though, that level of oversampling is well beyond helpful with the law of diminishing returns. All you are getting is MUCH larger files. Hope you like paying for more drive space.


    Scott
    It's not oversampling, when you are actually TRYING to capture sounds over 100kHz. I can either spend $10000 on a scientific high speed digitizer with a 100MHz sample rate (WAY more than I need for my experiment), or I can spend like $500 to $1000 (what I'm guessing it will cost) on an ultra-high-end sound card with a line-in port capable of 384kHz sample rate. The sound I want to record is slightly higher than 100kHz, but my current 192kHz sound card has a bandwidth of only 96kHz. I need the next higher sample rate soundcard (384kHz) if one even exists, in order to capture sounds over 96kHz (maximum frequency captured being 192kHz with a 384kHz soundcard). Unfortunately I have tried the same search you did and didn't actually find such a sound card.

    I would be VERY THANKFUL if you could actually point me to such a device. Please refrain from recommending specific google searches. I've already tried that or similar search terms, and got nothing. That's why I'm ASKING about it. If I found it in google already, I wouldn't be asking here.

    Also please refrain from saying that's more samplerate than I need. If I ask for a specific sample rate, it's because I need it. Unless you know my actual experiment's perameters, you don't know what I need. So instead of trying to second guess my needs, just reply with a simple link to a sound card with the specs that I've asked for.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by betwixt View Post
    It was actually digitizing the the RF waveform!

    Brian.
    And that's why you need an analog lowpass filter before the ADC in your sound card. 250kHz sample rate has a bandwidth that is 125kHz, well below the bottom of the AM broadcast band (about 520kHz), but all frequencies above that 125kHz are reflected downward back into the 125kHz band. So you weren't exactly digitizing the AM carrier, but rather you were digitizing a frequency shifted copy of the AM carrier.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Ok, so what about those 384khz cards in that list make them not acceptable?

    CL SoundBlasterXL might be consumer & gaming centric, but it's legit 384 capable.
    And RME is well known as one of the leaders of 384 capable DAWs.

    You could tell us what you are trying to capture without being so vague, and we might be able to point you to something more appropriate...

    Also, have you considered the inherent bandwidth restrictions in the analog side of your chain? Would be a shame to get something so deluxe and not be able to legitamately pipe what you want into it.


    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Ok, so what about those 384khz cards in that list make them not acceptable?

    CL SoundBlasterXL might be consumer & gaming centric, but it's legit 384 capable.
    And RME is well known as one of the leaders of 384 capable DAWs.

    You could tell us what you are trying to capture without being so vague, and we might be able to point you to something more appropriate...

    Also, have you considered the inherent bandwidth restrictions in the analog side of your chain? Would be a shame to get something so deluxe and not be able to legitamately pipe what you want into it.


    Scott

    Sound Blaster XL doesn't even exist. I just checked that specific item in google search.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Inexpensive digital oscilliscopes can record at sample rates like that. But not for extended periods and only with 8 bits.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    You should search "ADC 384khz -DAC" since you are looking for an ADC not a DAC for capturing analog audio, Right?
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Videogamer555 View Post
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Ok, so what about those 384khz cards in that list make them not acceptable?

    CL SoundBlasterXL might be consumer & gaming centric, but it's legit 384 capable.
    And RME is well known as one of the leaders of 384 capable DAWs.

    You could tell us what you are trying to capture without being so vague, and we might be able to point you to something more appropriate...

    Also, have you considered the inherent bandwidth restrictions in the analog side of your chain? Would be a shame to get something so deluxe and not be able to legitamately pipe what you want into it.


    Scott

    Sound Blaster XL doesn't even exist. I just checked that specific item in google search.
    Had a typo, was supposed to be X instead of XL (saw the 1 and thought it was an L), but regardless...did you click on the links? It's right there...

    Image
    [Attachment 57135 - Click to enlarge]


    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by betwixt View Post
    Interesting read. I don't want to get into arguments about the merits of sample rates and resolution but it may amuse you to know that many years ago I worked on the design of an audio sampling system running at about 250KHz. It was part of a system that slowed the sound speed by about 15 times to investigate tiny instantaneous changes in waveform, much as described in the link in post #3. I spent ages trying to eliminate a regular waveform that showed in the analysis and could be heard as a background tone in the slowed recordings, believing it to be either a mathematical error or fault in the electronics. Eventually it dawned on me that the waveform was actually present at the audio input and it was the carrier signal (not the audio you hear) from a local AM radio station. It was actually digitizing the the RF waveform!

    Brian.
    That's insane, you digitized the AM carrier frequency? How did the circuit detected it, through the metal chassis, were you using some sort of antenna or HF microphones?
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Whoops, you're right @dellsam34, those are only 384 in the DAC section.

    OK, how about this?...

    RME, purports to support 768 in and out, as well as DSD sampling.

    Image
    [Attachment 57136 - Click to enlarge]


    I knew RME would have something like that (used to work on RME/Pyramix board in sound design 15 years ago).


    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  16. Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Whoops, you're right @dellsam34, those are only 384 in the DAC section.

    OK, how about this?...

    RME, purports to support 768 in and out, as well as DSD sampling.

    Image
    [Attachment 57136 - Click to enlarge]


    I knew RME would have something like that (used to work on RME/Pyramix board in sound design 15 years ago).


    Scott
    Just googled it. It costs about $2000. I can get a USB-connected oscilloscope cheaper than that with a 100MSPS sample rate. I was interested in a super high sample rate sound card for 2 reasons.
    1: I assumed professional audio equipment was cheaper than scientific equipment.
    2: I wanted the convenience of using normal audio software to capture the signal, instead of depending on proprietary software written by the hardware's makers.

    I already have Goldwave audio software which supports sample rates up to 500kSPS, which is more than enough for the particular experiment I'm doing. A soundcard with a 384kSPS sample rate would actually be sufficient for what I want, as it would give me a full 192kHz bandwidth. I actually only need about a 150kHz bandwidth (300kSPS) but it's unlikely too find such a sound card, as sound cards seem to be power-of-2 multiples of 48kSPS (48, 96, 192, or 384 kSPS). So that's why I made my request for a 384kSPS sound card.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads