"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Heinz Kiosk" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Heinz Kiosk" wrote in
message

So... is this (surprising result to me) what the experts out there
would expect, and how much better are the more expensive PC cards eg
RME 968pad, lynxone, lynxtwo? In a permanent setup I would buy one
of the more expensive cards if they are audibly superior to the
m-audio 2496. Or would I be better off taking a digital output from
the 2496 card and using a separates DAC?

Yes, the AP2496 is a credible performer, particularly for consumers.
However, the conclusion that 10 times better technical performance
(LynxTWO) would sound better at all, is unwarranted by the relevant
facts about human perception.

I think that you mean that it wouldn't be worth me buying a better PC
card as my ears will not up to hearing the difference when played
through my consumer (or any?) equipment...

Your ears, my ears, everybody's ears.

The LynxOne is about midway between the AP2496 and the LynxTWO in terms of
measured perforamnce. Sonically, they can all get most normal record and
playback jobs done just fine. If you want to optimize your system further,
look elsewhere.


OK, this begs another question. I can put together a silent-ish PC with the
AP2496 for well under £1000, probably around £800 with a big enough HD to
store 400-500 lossless CDs. You have compiled technical evidence that
implies that for listening to CD originated music this source cannot be
*meaningfully* bettered for consumer purposes (I think, correct me if I am
misunderstanding you). Why, therefore, would any consumer pay more than this
for a home CD replay system. eg From memory the Linn CD12 retails for around
£12,000 and presumably the people who buy it are happy with the
value-for-money when they listen to the music. What sonic advantage is the
purchasor of such a system gaining? Are these high end systems introducing
deliberate "euphonic distortion" that makes the music sound better? Or what?
Tom