>From what I have read in the past, there is a difference between inexpensive >sound cards and the high quality ones. I recall past articles that suggest >the high quality ones can result in some very weak signals being detectable in >a waterfall, whereas cheap cards may not reproduce the signal. However, as >most of us know, even the cheap sound cards effectively render the average ham >signals, even quite weak ones.
So, aside from the higher end ones rendering weak signals on a waterfall better, what are measurable difference between a poor cheap one and a really good top-of-the-line one ? Can someone explain this is plain English? I am aware of the "calibration/timing" issue. Although that too does not seem to make a huge difference with many digital modes. Of the numerous digital modes I have tried over the years, PC-ALE and JT65A in WSJT have been the most impacted by calibration issues. I have seen WSJT not decode at all when timing of the soundcard is not correct. Do higher end sound card have less problems with timing/calibration than cheap ones? Is calibration really an issue of concern IF an application can enable a re-calibration process ? If an application enables re-calibration, does that only "hold" for that application or can it correct the soundcard for other applications. I raise these questions out of general interest, but also because of recent WINMOR test where the poor performance has been blamed , in part, on cheap sound cards or sound cards not dedicated to the application. I don't know enough to argue the point, but my suspicion is that it is really not that sound card related. Andy K3UK
