Asus Essense ST Music Card - Studio or Music

[KnightAngel]

I'm building a home recording studio and purchased the Asus Essense ST because of it's sound quality (THD, S/N, etc.). I'm also considering buying the H6 daughterboard for added outputs ... if I can do what I want to do.

I know the H6 was designed for 7.1 use, but can it be used as additional outputs in a recording studio? Out of the box are the output signals for the H6 flat or are they already customized for 7.1 use? If the H6 outputs are 7.1 specific, can they be made flat by swapping op-amp and if so which op-amps would I use? Thanks for your help.

 

[Julf]

I would assume they are flat, as any "customisation" is better done in software. Changing opamps definitely won't change any of the filtering/emphasis characteristics.

 

[Sangram]

In real terms, the ST is not good enough for studio use. Sorry, but that's how it is.

I compared it about two years ago with a E-mu 1212m and a Delta66 modded with new opamps and caps, and the ST fared decently against the decade-old Delta but against the E-mu was fine in D/A duty but the A/D was much worse.

Digital output on the 1212m was also much better because of the dedicated output circuitry. The 1212m is a discontinued card but almost any studio card at the same price as the Xonar will be much better - the ESI Juli@ is a good starting point, as it is almost the exact same price and has a stellar digital section.

I would NOT use a Xonar card for studio use because the latency on digital I/O is also quite poor, mostly due to low quality drivers not designed for realtime use. My D2X pops and clicks and is basically not usable for much beyond YouTube and some very basic music/movie duties.

I believe the headphone section is quite good. That may be the only reason to buy it...

 

[Julf]

In real terms, the ST is not good enough for studio use.

What specific problems does it have with sound quality?

I compared it about two years ago with a E-mu 1212m and a Delta66 modded with new opamps and caps, and the ST fared decently against the decade-old Delta but against the E-mu was fine in D/A duty but the A/D was much worse.

Was the comparison done based on measurements, double-blind ABX listening tests, or just sighted listening?

Digital output on the 1212m was also much better because of the dedicated output circuitry.

Better in what way?

I would NOT use a Xonar card for studio use because the latency on digital I/O is also quite poor, mostly due to low quality drivers not designed for realtime use. My D2X pops and clicks and is basically not usable for much beyond YouTube and some very basic music/movie duties.

What operating system are you using. Drivers are OS-specific, and I don't think the OP specified the OS.

I believe the headphone section is quite good. That may be the only reason to buy it...

What is your belief based on?

 

[Sangram]

What specific problems does it have with sound quality?

Was the comparison done based on measurements, double-blind ABX listening tests, or just sighted listening?

Better in what way?

What operating system are you using. Drivers are OS-specific, and I don't think the OP specified the OS.

What is your belief based on?

Hi

1. The sound itself was very dry and did not offer much insight into the recording. There was sufficient detail but the reverb tails (for example) were much clearer in the studio cards. Pretty much every song sounded dull and lifeless, an the soundstage was extremely poor, something I assume is because of channel separation.

2. The card was measured using the 1212m as a A/D, and we ran a full suite of RMAA benchmarks. In addition, lots of listening was done - both comparative and long-term listening, to both the analog and digital sections. As said, the analog was evaluated using the 1212 as a D/A and the Buffalo DAC was used to compare the digital outputs.

3. The digital output had lower and more consistent latency on the 1212m. The Asus would occasionally lose lock, even when set to latency above 30ms. This was tested with a Buffalo DAC. Obviously not possible to compare the sound quality because of the long time taken to swap cables etc.

4. The OS was WinXP (at the time). I use a D2X now with Win7 Ultimate. Not much difference in digital output performance. I don't bother with analog on the Asus card. Driver revision, I don't remember it was a very long time ago.

5. Quality of headphone output based on reports from other listeners who provided feedback on the review.

The review itself is still up but the image host is now a paid one and deleted all my images so am not linking to it, as all the posted measurements are now no longer available.

 

[Julf]

Thank you for the clarifications!

1. The sound itself was very dry and did not offer much insight into the recording. There was sufficient detail but the reverb tails (for example) were much clearer in the studio cards. Pretty much every song sounded dull and lifeless, an the soundstage was extremely poor, something I assume is because of channel separation.

Was this sighted listening?

2. The card was measured using the 1212m as a A/D, and we ran a full suite of RMAA benchmarks.

And what kind of problems did the measurements show?

3. The digital output had lower and more consistent latency on the 1212m.

Latency is of course important in some situations, but usually not relevant in normal listening.

The Asus would occasionally lose lock, even when set to latency above 30ms.

That definitely sounds like a windows driver issue.

4. The OS was WinXP (at the time). I use a D2X now with Win7 Ultimate. Not much difference in digital output performance. I don't bother with analog on the Asus card. Driver revision, I don't remember it was a very long time ago.

So I assume very old drivers as well.

5. Quality of headphone output based on reports from other listeners who provided feedback on the review.

OK, so interesting but anecdotal.

 

[Sangram]

Thank you for the clarifications!



Was this sighted listening?

And what kind of problems did the measurements show?

Latency is of course important in some situations, but usually not relevant in normal listening.

That definitely sounds like a windows driver issue.



So I assume very old drivers as well.

OK, so interesting but anecdotal.

1. Our standard test procedure is to go through a suite of test tracks of both good and bad recordings, and use a guided notes section, so yes, I assume it was sighted listening.

2. Measurements showed no issues. The performance was superb, and very close to spec, within margin of error.

3. In a studio environment that the TS wants, latency is everything and I disagree with that statement. The ASIO mode in the Xonar does not allow any mixing at all, no volume control so you have to have a separate monitor controller, and no submixing of inputs. The I/O capability is very limited - for example it is not possible to monitor one input while recording from another, in ASIO mode. In DS mode it is possible but you will never be able to sync because of the massive latency introduced by the drivers and the fact that sound is routed through Windows. Asus cards now have modded driver packs to ease this issue, but even then the latency is difficult to get below 30ms.

4. I am now talking about 2014, not 2011. Latest drivers still show similar latency, as the CMI8788 cannot work in hardware mode except as a D/A and A/D, no mixing. I think that in a studio in any case D/A quality is secondary to mixing capability and flexibility of I/O. This means you have a good upgrade path and are able to add DSP, D/A and A/D and so on without having to reconfigure your entire studio. I bought the Delta 66 in 2003, and it is still able to perform at the heart of my little home studio. I get latency of about 8ms at 24/44.1, which is enough for me. I have added DSP and D/A, with my DAW running three cards together now. However the Via mixer in the Delta has held on to be the center of everything so far.

5. Re headphone output, I don't use headphones so I wouldn't know much except what is already out on the web (and there is plenty).

 

[abraxalito]

1. The sound itself was very dry and did not offer much insight into the recording. There was sufficient detail but the reverb tails (for example) were much clearer in the studio cards. Pretty much every song sounded dull and lifeless, an the soundstage was extremely poor, something I assume is because of channel separation.

In my experience, soundstage isn't a matter of channel separation, its a matter of noise. Missing reverb tails is also down to excessive (modulation) noise. In the presence of noise modulated by the signal, it seems our brain/ears can't decode the low level cues which allow the soundstage illusion to be reproduced. Cleaning up the power supply significantly might well help, but within a PC environment that's not particularly easy.

 

[Julf]

3. In a studio environment that the TS wants, latency is everything

If you monitor digitally, in a live recording scenario, yes. I tend to prefer analog monitoring.

The ASIO mode in the Xonar does not allow any mixing at all, no volume control so you have to have a separate monitor controller, and no submixing of inputs.

Those are valid (and valuable) points about functional issues. Thanks!

In DS mode it is possible but you will never be able to sync because of the massive latency introduced by the drivers and the fact that sound is routed through Windows. Asus cards now have modded driver packs to ease this issue, but even then the latency is difficult to get below 30ms.

Those are windows-related issues. Not everybody uses Windows.

I think that in a studio in any case D/A quality is secondary to mixing capability and flexibility of I/O. This means you have a good upgrade path and are able to add DSP, D/A and A/D and so on without having to reconfigure your entire studio.

I agree.

 

[Sangram]

That is a good point which I forgot to highlight, the 1212m was in the same PC, on the same supply. The supply ripple is below 30mV at full load, we were at the lower end of the draw which provides even lower ripple. Not as good as a linear supply, but it was apples to apples comparison: Corsair VX450W Power Supply Review | Hardware Secrets

Edit @Julf, Asus does not publish drivers for OS other than Windows http://support.asus.com/download.aspx?SLanguage=en&p=21&m=Xonar Essence ST&hashedid=k8OChreLuh8zgFmQ

In case it is construed otherwise, I liked the card a lot. My end notes state that as a pure music source, it was an excellent way to sample good sound without breaking the bank. In a studio though, I would think twice !!

 

[Julf]

Edit @Julf, Asus does not publish drivers for OS other than Windows ASUSTeK Computer Inc. -Support- Drivers and Download Xonar Essence ST

Does it actually need specific drivers on Linux and OSX, or does it work as a generic sound card?

 

[Sangram]

As a generic card (if it works, which I don't know), you lose all the mixer features. I do vaguely remember Ubuntu Studio with ALSA had some problems with the CMI chipsets but I didn't investigate further. Since it was based on CMI8788, it should work as long as that chip is recognised by ALSA - a lot of other consumer cards are also based on that chipset, Hercules IIRC.

In case it makes it any better, E-mu also does not publish drivers for any other OS. However because the Creative 10k2 is very similar to 10k1, the card does work albeit with zero mixing features (software control only) which makes it less than optimal for DAW use.

I am not sure if the situation has changed in the last few years. E-mu is now dead and Asus officially only offers the Windows driver. I agree Windows has many issues and the Asus driver pack has too much fluff. Mac is definitely preferable because of driver and OS stability, but then one has to plump for a totally new setup which I am not keen to do!

 

[sgrossklass]

The main reason why I'd say a Xonar ST(X) is a no-go in a studio setup is the lack of balanced inputs and outputs. You don't want ground loop noise all over the place! Even if a loopback measurement should not yet show significant trouble, all hell will break loose once you try to record from another card in the same computer, with results staying far behind the ADC's actual capabilities.

The card's outputs could be integrated, but it would require a bit of effort for best results. You would have to solder up unbalanced to balanced adapter cables as suggested by e.g. Bill Whitlock - balanced shielded cable, signal to hot, ground to cold, ground to shield. If you can find out output impedance and match that with a resistor in the ground-cold connection, even better.