Getting serious about my audio- Studio Monitor Recomendations?
 

I'm thinking about using my Klipsch Promedia 5.1's for my other (gaming) machine and picking up a good pair of shielded studio Monitor speakers. I don't need 5.1's as I don't work with 5.1 audio.

Can anyone recommend a good set that will work with a (now don't laugh) Soundblaster Audigy 2. I'm not looking to change my soundcard as of yet.

Maybe a good pair of Mackies or something. When it comes to audio I'm admittedly very weak...and need all the help you guys can give me. Thanks in advance.

Glen, if your sound blaster has a digital audio out, run a digital wire(coax, or optical) to a receiver. A good onkyo, or denon reciver and a pair of von schweikert vr1 monitor speakers would be a huge step up from any "5.1 in a box" set up.

John

I actually need something a little more compact. Something that will connect directly to the sound card without a reciever.

Studio monitor speakers ARE better at doing audio edits than a pair of Klipsch promedia's that are marketed for gaming...correct?!

The reciever powers the speakers. More power, cleaner THD, more dynamic range, and better drivers means better audio. The whole set up, the card, reciever, drivers and wires all work together.


John

The only thing you have to ask yourself now is...... how far am I willing to take it....... ;) belive me it can get expensive, thats why most people have the "5.1 in a box" set up.

Well I paid $500 for my 5.1 all-in-one system. It provides some of the best audio money can buy (well at least before getting into exotic set-ups)...but in the realm of computer gaming. I know real-world audio is a different ball-game and even question if I "need" pro audio monitors?

I do event/wedding videography. So the majority of audio editing will be with the officiant and the bride/groom's vows exhchange. I know it's not the most involving audio editing but figured if I was planning on moving my WORK machine to a separate desk...why try to lug the uneccessary 5.1 system with it...if I can get away with a simple 2-peice audio set up that might offer more "accurate" monitoring during audio edits.

What's your take. Will I be fine with a Best Buy bought 2.1 system or should I go the Studio Monitor route? What is the benefit I'd reap from going with the latter?

Why go totally nuts. Get a pair of powered monitorsTannoy Reveals or Yorkville YSM1P You don't want a thumping base, just clean and accurate.

Look at the M-Audio 2496 card, it's around $100

To answer your question, no you dont "need" it. Most 2.1, or 5.1 in a box systems get there power from the sound card itself, not from a reciever, so you will hear a huge difference. I dont know how you would power large speakers without a reciever, so if sound is a critical part of your production, then a pro set up should be worth looking into.

bryan,

Using powerd speakers completely slipped my mind, the links look perfect for a step up from a 5.1 in a box set up.


John

Douglas uses some smaller M-Audio powered speakers for his seminars. They can be had with a subwoofer. They sound quite good.

KRK, Mackie, M-Audio are good brands. Just make certain you are getting speakers that are monitors designed for mixing sound. There are stereo speakers that are labeled monitors that are not at all what you want for good sound mixing.

I decided I didn't want powered speakers since I already had a Rotel amplifier. The KRK Rok-R's I got are awesomely good. I've yet to be able to over drive them except with very low frequencies.

Best upgrade for audio mixing that can be made.

It might be better to spend $100 on sound treatment instead of a better sound card? You might need to spend a little more than that even if you plan to build your own panels. Jay Rose's book Audio Postproduction for Digital Video ($30, see dplay.com for buying info) has instructions for building your own and is otherwise an excellent book.

Sound treatment may be needed to cut down the reverb time of your room, control flutter echo (clap your hands and listen for a 'boing' response), and make the room sound less boomy (it may not do all these things- it depends on your room's acoustics and the design of your sound treatment).

2- The Audigy 2 isn't THAT bad is it? I listened to one a little bit although my ears didn't have anything better to compare it to at that point in time. The recording part of it kinda sucks as it has mystery limiters... but the playback seems fine. It doesn't have hiss like the Soundblaster Lives do. Not sure how far the bass extends (although you may need a subwoofer to hear that) or how good/bad the distortion and detail is compared to a better card.

There's a review on the 'net where someone compared the SB Audigy2 to the M-Audio Revolution 7.1 and the Terratec DMX-Fire ($200 card, very nice). They tested playing music on headphones to real people (blind testing), who judged the cards on enjoyment (not accuracy). The Terratec card won out, and it was a tossup between the Audigy2 and the M-Audio Revolution for 2nd/3rd place.

Mackie 624, Mackie 626, M-Audio SPBX-5, SPBX-8, Genelec 1029's, these are all good SERIOUS monitor enclosures.
Then there are

Huge can O' Worms here.
 

OK. Not an audio-head but here goes...

If you want to hear the sound exactly like the average person will hear it you need to have the same setup the average person has. Good luck even figuring out what that is.

Next best bet is to get accurate reproduction from a studio monitor. Genlec comes to mind but are quite high in the cost range. You need to look for flat response. No subs unless they come with a flat system. Everyone gets in trouble with Bose and all those systems that have the tiny satelite speakers and a bass box. The response isn't as flat across the range as they would have you believe.

Something simple like the Mackies, they also have a smaller division called Tapco. We have been selling a bunch of these with our smaller Avid suites. They sound reasonable and replace the venerable old Roland 12 series quite well.

If you are whole hog serious about flat sound reproduction, find an EQ that has a pink (not white) noise generator, 12 or more band graphic display and matched microphone. Pump that annoying pink noise out of the system, place the mic at listening position and run the EQ faders until the display shows a flat response.

What you have just done will be to boost the gaps in freq response where your crossover lie in the speakers or the bi-amped system (sometimes used on amplified systems) misses a bit. You are also adjusting somewhat for room acoustics but that's a really tricky bit there.

Carpet Everything....The walls, the ceiling, the cat... Cushy furniture and soft materials help absorbe reflections. And NEVER place your speakers in a corner. You are going to have dead spots. Try pumping out tone and moving your head around the listining position. You will likely hear nulls where the tone is self canceling, etc.

How good is good? Do you think it's good sound? Will your clients? That's what counts. Try not to spend too much on all this. I use gaming speakers, Altecs on my small Express Pro / Premiere Pro system. We playback for proofing on a 14" 16:9 capable component/S-video monitor, both audio and video.

We haven't even mentioned noise floors of mixers, pre-amps, tube mics, Digital Audio Workstations, 12 bit vs 16 bit, etc.

Sean McHenry

<<<Carpet Everything....The walls, the ceiling, the cat... >>>

I'd have to dispute that comment in an otherwise very good post.
Carpet not only is a lousy diffuser, but it can also lend to more problems than it removes.
So far, since no one has mentioned it....
Avoid eggcrate foam. It's illegal in most states anyway for anything but going under mattresses?

Check out either of Jay Rose's books Producing Great Sound for Digital Video or Audio Post Production for Digital Video. Note esp. what he has to say about small speakers. In the latter book he also has a lot of useful things to say about acoustic treaments for a room (you really only need to worry about 1/3 the surface area if done properly)

Look at the range of studio monitors from a good broadcast supply outlet B&H or http://www.bswusa.com. Forget consumer market speakers.

Rose writes: " Some people claim small, cheap speakers are better because they're like ones in cheap TV sets. The reasoning is that these speakers will give a more accurate picture of what most people will hear . . .

"The fact is that most cheap speakers are bad in random ways. What improves sound on one can make it worse on another. What is consistent is that most cheap speakres will miss an octave or more at both ends of the spectrum. The affects how you balance voice and music because music has more energy at those extremes. And the restricted range can hide serious problems with hum, boominess are noise

"Make your mix decisions on good speakers, so you'll know what's actually going to be on the track."

Well, I have seen carpet used at a lot of stations, including the NBC station I was at for over 16 years but, it is true that unless you use calibrated foam batting, like Sonex, it won't "absorb" everythig that hits it so I suppose one can make a case for not using carpet.

Now we are back to the argument of how people at home hear the sound. Almost everyone sits in a thick shag carpeted room with soft plush furniture but mostly bare walls. So, the furniture and the carpeting as well as drapes, etc randomly cancel bits of the spectrum here and there but the walls add to the reflections that are left.

I still go for carpet as some sound deadening is, in my opinion only perhaps, better than none. The original audio booth at the NBC station actually still has peg board placed about 1" off the main walls. It might be odd but that's one of the deadest rooms I have ever been in.

Unless you are going to build an anechoic chamber, this is all a matter of degrees and how much money you want to sink into that end of your operation.

Some of the better sound stages I have been in have slab floor construction of poured concrete covered with wood flooring and then seemingly randomly placed small sections of carpeting. The floors actually float on large blocks of soft rubber to isolate the floors from enviornmental noiises like trucks and trains in the area.

There is a large neoprene gasket of several inches that seals the walls to the floors. They are extra thick with insulation between double walls of drywall. The ceilings are of plank hardwood construction that is spaced a scientifically placed distance below the actual ceiling and run at an angle to the walls.

In our old post facility, the original sound stage actually had suspended lead sheeting between the walls.

On occasion the back wall is actually made from natural stone in a random pattern to provide a very scattered bounce off the back.

Personally, that's a bit much to ask out of my basement so, I carpeted everything.

And don't forget to calculate your standing wave ratios out of your room dimensions. You can easily create a great big tank circuit if you don't watch those dimensions.

Carpet ABSORBS nothing. It deflects with nearly equal response. It has some small bandwidth absorption at very high frequencies IF it's not a nylon coated carpet, which most are.
Pegboard was, and is still common in professional houses. It's a totally different concept. TubeTraps are not terribly unlike pegboard in their functionality. Traps absorb to certain levels and frequencies.
While you might like your carpet, there are many, many reasons to not use it. Including legal ones.
Jeff Cooper has an excellent treatise on this very argument, and I can't find it on the web. He does an entire discussion on why carpet is a huge mistake. Having designed several small rooms professionally, and as a recording artist that has recorded in more rooms than I care to count, a properly treated room has never included carpeting on the walls. Floors in some areas, yes.

What environment people listen to audio in is inconsequential to a very real degree. Once you start making that sort of argument, you might as well argue that we should all mix on Auratones or worse. Yes, we should benchmark with low quality, but trying to put the argument forth that the same kind of an environment is a good thing is simply irresponsible to the majority of listeners. For example, most listeners have painted sheetrock walls with either hardwood or carpeted floors, with either leather or fabric sofas, and equipment ranging from Radio Crap to the sublime of very high end audiophile gear. You mix, prepare, and master for the audiophile, and it will sound good to very, very good on the average. Dumbing down the environment helps no one and hurts the production value.
I'm not sustaining the idea that a room has to be expensive to treat. We recently did the Metrostudio facility for a cost of less than 650.00 for an entire room.
On the other hand, my tracking room IS a floated piece of concrete with rubber blocks, channel strips, floated in a room where the walls are sand-filled cinderblock masticked together, with Sheetrock, 1/8" airspace, Celotex, 1/8" airspace, and then a layer of sheetrock. Then there is another 1/8 airspace and over that is Alaskan Cedar on the walls with air gapping every 4.5 inches. It is a small room with a very tight and even response, only a slight bright bump at 6K and a nice rolloff at 90hz. And since I know those numbers, if necessary I can compensate. That's on the recording side. My monitoring room doesn't have NEAR that sort of treatment because it's a monitoring room and I don't have to keep sound out, I only have to have balanced audio and keep sound from going out to the tracking rooms. It's a blend of unsquare walls, Auralex traps, TubeTraps, rubberized soffits, and waterfilled speaker stands. And again, I've measured the bounce and nodes, and have eq'd for that.
I don't expect folks will go this far either, but this is what I do for a living. I'd really hate to think I went to school for 2 years learning room design and acoustics only to find that carpet on a wall negates all that horrible math. :-)

We mostly agree and as I didn't spend the years learning room acoustics but electronics and studio engineering, I can't and wouldn't argue the matter, especially with someone I respect, like Douglas. I don't know what could possible be a legal matter with putting carpet on your surfaces. Sounds interesting. If you find that link, send it along.

Lets just say that all those carpet fibers then lead to a jumbled bounce and breakup (by deflection I suppose) in mostly the highs. Still, breaking up the direction of the reflections keeps from having in phase returning sound at your ears or the mics.

Same reason you have the air gaps in the woodwork I should think. Partially as a trap and partially as a multiplane reflective surface?

I suppose some bright engineering type could make a peg board material with varying sized holes in it to dampen the reflections of various frequencies? Odd that nobody ever went that route that I am aware of.

I think for the average small, and I'm talking less than living room size, workspaces I have seen some of the folks using here, a look at TecNec or Markertek and the various offerings from Sonex, etc., are a good starting point. Corner traps, acoustic blankets, Sonex and house brand foam sheeting, etc.

If they are really interested in the right way of doing it for a professional workspace, maybe they should consider hiring someone with experience that will take into account the purpose of the room, the shape and dimensions and materials. Seems like there is enough interest here that perhaps Douglas should consider a laymans article?

For me, I just need less reflections hitting me from behind in my space and a good flat monitor system. At least for now.

I'm not really advocating the approach that we all use a TV for Q&A. I still would recommend a good flat sound system with enough punch to propperly handle transients without stressing and inducing a higher THD factor on the amps and loud speakers.

It is interesting that you can have quality "discussions" with the Producers that come back complaining that their last spot just didn't sound quite the same on their mothers 5" mono B&W set in the kitchen last weekend.

At least folks should be aware and conscious that there is a vast array of sound systems out there folks are watching their evening news on.

I have a 5.1 system in the living room and the 37" Plasma hung like a picture but occasionally only use the 2 speaker system on the plasma. In the bedroom I have a 21" LCD on the wall and only use the smaller 4" or so speakers in the set. In the offices I have various small TVs and normally use their in set speakers. Some mono some stereo and all of dubious clarity. Things are going to sound better on some systems.

We used to advocate either the small Roland series MA8 or MA12c but lately we have been telling people about the Tapcos and Tannoys. I haven't really read the specs on them. I have been trusting the editors on staff to this point to find something they like and let us sales staff know about it. Probably a bad idea but so far, no complaints on that end.

See you guys.

I just bought a pair of Behringer 2031A's, and I really like them. I use the Mackie THX speakers at work, but they are wayyy out of my price range.

For a fairly decent set of speakers at a modestly affordable price (both of these go hand-in-hand for this reccommendation) get the Behringers.

They cost $339 for the pair- they are self powered, which iliminated my crappy speaker amp. For the price, they are great.

Check out spec's online. Good luck,

Jeff Patnaude

Hmm I dunno about all this- I'm not a musician mastering an album or anything. Maybe the whole idea was overkill. I'll probably go with a nice pair of Klipsch 2.1's and call it a day.

The new Blue Sky Media Desk looks interesting:

http://www.abluesky.com/p_s_gb/p3s7.html

It's a serious step up from normal computer speakers, but perhaps not so esoteric to be too far removed from the HiFi quality of your target audience. They also offer a 'Pro Desk' solution which is the same 2.1 solution used at 47 editing stations in Skywalker Ranch, according to their literature.

We used the BlueSky system on the VASST tour. Call Danny at CalAV and tell him you're a VASST discountee to get a better price.
I hope you realize that the Klipsch speaks are just logitechs with a different name stashed on them. In other words, overpriced plastic.

Well the Promedia 5.1's and Logitech Z680's are THX certified and the highest rated PC speakers. Granted that isn't in the "studio monitor" realm but ask anyone that has heard them if they can call them "overpriced plastic".

I'm not claiming to know more about audio than Douglas Spotted Eagle, however I don't know how this is helpfull to someone that is curious as to the benefits of having studio monitor speakers over "overpriced plastic" Klipsch- considering the particular involvement audio has in my video production workflow.

I think the benefits of studio monitors over "computer speakers" have been pretty well addressed? You might even think that the Klipsch speakers sound better. And in certain instances they will, because the don't offer a flat response, but that doesn't make them good speakers to mix on.

When you mix a video and it sounds great on your computer and then you burn a DVD of it and give it to your buddy and it sounds like crap, with no or too much bottom end or whatever, you will realise the benefit of nearfield monitors.

I just read the above paragraph and perhaps it comes off in a way I don't intend. I'm not trying to be mean or argumenative. Everything we do is a compromise of desire, knowledge and resources, so for you maybe high end plastic is the way to go, but there is certainly a difference between those Klipsh speakers and Mackie nearfield monitors.

Now, I have a pair of Fostex NFMs and I love them. Not as much as the Mackies but they're real nice none the less and the wont break the bank. Maybe you should look into those.

Matt

My point is, you can buy the Logitech, Alesis, or Klipsch and have the same speakers with different labels. Buy the Alesis, save a bundle. Buy the Logitech, save even more. It's just a name and a little paint slapped on the plastic to make them look sweeter. I took several classes from Paul Klipsch, he'd roll over 3 times in his grave if he knew his name was being licensed to lowgrade computer speaks. If you think I'm being snobby, you should read Paul's writings on speaker systems.
THX for consumer playback is different than THX certified for authoring.

I don't mean to be snobby about it, but the point that irks me is that guys will go out and spend 2K on a broadcast monitor and spend 200.00 on speaker monitors. Ears are more important than eyes in a very real sense.
Do you need a perfect room to monitor audio for video? No. Will you gain a lot by choosing to perform some basic room treatments? Absolutely, IF you have decent monitors. A good pair of monitors beats a low grade 5.1 system any day, and a good pair of monitors are much easier to manage than a 5.1 system any day.
My main thrust/point is this:
If you're doing work for $$ from clients and you don't have a good broadcast monitor and good playback monitors, you're doing them a grave disservice and harming yourself in the end.
There is more to great sound than just speakers, but they are a big part of the equasion.
I meant no offense, but you asked about great audio/improved audio. And plastic Klipsch speakers aren't gonna cut it. Any more than the new plastic/licensed JBL's or DCM's are gonna cut it.

I use Event 20/20's in my home studio with pretty good results. When I want to get really critical, I take the mix to my friend's studio and listen through the Genelecs.
Bruce yarock

Spot, I don't know what dealings Klipsch and Logitech have or even if they are the same company but I can assure you the Promedia 5.1's from Klipsch and the Logitech Z680 5.1's are different hardware. Just look at the specs. Heck they even sound different.

To be honest I don't quite grasp the concept of studio monitor speakers. I understand how it's important to have a NTSC Studio Video Monitor to help judge your footage visually based on a controled example. The "control" is achieved through a universal calibration where the colors and luminance are judged from a set standard. That way you won't get possible skewed results from using a monitor that isn't properly calibrated. Now....does this concept carry over to the audial realm in terms of using studio monitor speakers? If so I don't quite understand. How is the sound your hearing from the studio monitors "accurate"...by what means is it controlled or calibrated to a known standard?

I started to back off the idea of investing in studio monitors because I honestly am starting to feel it's like getting wheelie bars for a stock Ford Tempo. It's just overkill- and I won't reap the benefits that they offer. As I said my sole involvement with audio is usually speech....Church readings, Surmon from the Officiant, Vows from the Couple, etc. My audio has never neccessarily been a problem in my video production as I have a nominal knowledge of some audio filters....most of which I use being Sony Noise Reduction. Now if I were to ditch these $500 Klipsch speakers and go with a real-deal bonified set of studio monitor speakers....how will that help me? Am I not getting an accurate representation of the sound I'm editing? Is it the same as trying to color correct on a cheap old television compared to a properly calibrated NTSC monitor?
After all we must consider the source in which the audio is going to end up...on a Television.

[I}Am I not getting an accurate representation of the sound I'm editing? Is it the same as trying to color correct on a cheap old television compared to a properly calibrated NTSC monitor?
...by what means is it controlled or calibrated to a known standard? ....[/I]

It's absolutely the same thing. You understand the visual but apparently not the aural.
Audio monitors are even easier to calibrate than video monitors, because with audio monitors you have electronic devices that are very inexpensive, that can determine what flat response is, which is EXACTLY what you want from monitor speakers. As opposed to a video monitor, that while tools exist, most folks use SMPTE bars, a blue gel, and eyeball it. It's a little more complex than audio to calibrate the video monitor.

Flat is the absence of enhanced or detracted frequencies, with all frequencies being at equal value across the aural spectrum. Monitor speakers should be as flat as possible to achieve accurate representation of what is on tape or coming off the hard drive. What sounds great for listening to a DVD likely isn't going to be accurate in an authoring room. Consumer speakers aren't made to be flat, they're made to be enhanced.
Make sense?

And Gene for $500 you can get a pair of NFMs, maybe not great ones, but ones that will serve your purpose better than what you have. Hell, I was at Sam Ash yesterday and there were a nice pair of Mackies for six and change.

Matt

So how would one calibrate studio monitor speakers? And does the soundcard play a large part in the accuracy....in other words is it impossible to get accurate flat responce from an Audigy 2?

Lastly- I see most studio monitors only have a midrange driver and a tweeter. What about the low frequencies?

You could get a sound pressure level meter and calibrate the monitors so that you are getting the right SPL for your audience.

You can also add EQ to the speakers to even out frequency response of the room, but that doesn't really help.

You don't really calibrate audio monitors as they generally do not drift (you may need to clean the connectors every few years). To get accurate sound, you need good equipment and a good room. Right now even the best rooms are far from being flat in frequency response depending on how you measure. But you can try to get the flattest response possible given your budget.

A sound card will affect the following things:

flat frequency response. At the low low end of the bass, the card might be slightly weak. This is not a problem for you as speech does not go low enough to be an issue with your Audigy2. Some on-board sound on old computers is really bad and rolls off bass significantly.

Distortion/detail. A better sound card will offer more detailed sound. This can help with noise reduction as you can hear the 'artifacts' clearer. However, your monitor likely play a larger role in determining detail. You can use headphones for noise reduction. In this case your sound card makes a difference.
*Headphones are not for mixing! Tasks like dialogue editing and noise reduction can be better on headphones however.

Signal/noise ratio. Shouldn't be an issue for what you do. The Audigy2 should provide more S/N ratio that your target format.

Glen or Douglas

Is there a quick and easy way to measure the freq. response of a room?

One way to do it is this:

Generate a sine wave that is increasing in pitch. Play this through your speakers and record the sound. By looking at the waveform in your audio program you can get an idea of what the frequency response is.

You will want a microphone with flat frequency response. Behringer makes the cheapest one... (like $80 or something like that). They (may) have copied the design from someone else, which is why it's so much cheaper than everything else out there that runs for several hundred dollars (low R&D costs since they are copying/reverse engineering). Otherwise use an omnidirectional microphone. You could use any other microphone and get the frequency response charts for it to know how much of the variation in frequency response is due to the microphone.

You may want to repeat the test in a different point in the room, as the frequency response will shift.

Other ways of measuring frequency response:
Playing broadband white noise and using frequency analysis on the recorded sound.

Playing narrow bands of white noise.

If you want to get even better measurements, you could play short bursts of noise or sine wave and measure the frequency response of the direct and reflected sound. (something like this)

You could also do the first test mentioned above and use your ears instead of a microphone.

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Wiley : Glen or Douglas

Is there a quick and easy way to measure the freq. response of a room? -->>>

There is a way that it is done. Almost all the audio testing systems I've seen are
based around a laptop with a mic interface, though there are single
boxes that are stand alone RTAs (Real Time Analyzer)

I think sound devices
makes a USB preamp. Get Smart or Spectra Foo software and
a good omni microphone that has a flat response. Most guys go with
Earthworks mic. Add a device which outputs tone at a certain SPL
(most expensive part of the system) for calibration and voila . . .
you can then run pink noise through the speakers and see what the
sum of all the factors of your studio environment produce.

From there you make adjustments to improve your situation.
Those improvements usually include EQ and sound treatment
like adding diffusers.

I have behringer truths and these babies don't have let me down. Been using them for over a year and they are soo amazing clear and you won't get tired of them. They are cheap and they received great reviews from all the mayor midi/audio magazines online and offline. They say it is a ripp-off of the mackies which cost 4 times as much. :) I love these Behringers I have.

If you want to create those low bass sound effects heard in cinemas, buy 2 extra subwoofers. The behringer truth cuts at 50 hz. Thsat is common for all nearfield monitors. The behringers are great for hiphop/trance/r&B/rock styles. If you want more clarity , buy the mackiens 824 monitors. They cost 6 times as much. :)

The Behringers are indeed a nice monitor. They are also indeed a ripoff of the Mackies. But they don't sound much like the Mackies, I've got both. I'll take the Mackies, thank you very much. I didn't pay for the Behringers, but if I was on a budget, I'd not hesitate one second to buy them. They're very nice for the price.

Just about 2 weeks ago I bought the Behringer 2031A monitors and so far, although I have not given the a real workout, I love them.

I did however have a real problem with the built in NVidia audio chipset in my PCs main board. I went down to the local Sam Ash and picked up an M-Audio 192 card with sounds of - nothing - on my mind. The sweet sound of nothing, how I longed for that. Unfortunatly, I still had a nasty buzz whenever some major processing was happening on the main board.

I swapped that for the M-Audio MobilePre USB box they make. That did it. No more noise. I figured if I went out of the box digital, it would help and it did.

I can recommend this method if you need something portable too. When I use the laptop like normal, the onboard soundcard is OK. If I want to edit or capture sound, plug in the MobilePre and it becomes the sound card. Unplug it and I am back to normal. Put a mixer in front of it and capture a whole session in stereo. Seems to be ideal.

48K max I believe on the sample rate but that's what the Avid is looking for anyway so It's going to be OK.

I also bought the Behringer B1 mic and a decent AKG stand with boom arm and a Shure pop-stopper.

I'm building the studio space in the basement and it's taking shape nicely. Tons of AC outlets, space for the Avid system and a seperate DAW (running Vegas) with room for the voice overs and even a couch and chairs. Dimable quartz lighting, etc.

I'll send pix when it's up and running this spring.

Sean McHenry