Related Articles

AN 1 & with both Connectors attached

The most interesting finding though, from the A/B tests, was that the recordings using the AN1 definitely turned up cleaner. In complex sequences, the sound card recordings had a slight but noticeable amount of background buzz or distortion that was not present in the AN1 recordings. This may very well be a result of the D-A conversions taking place outside of the computer casing, and away from the electromagnetic interference inherent in such an environment, or it could be that the AN1 had superior DACs with higher SNR ratios. Regardless, the AN1 proved that at least on the point of cleaner recording signal, it lived up to its marketing promise.

Based on the whole of the situation, I would have to suggest that the AN1 is not a device that you would invest in, unless you had a poor sound card and suffer from an obvious and audible amount of signal noise in recordings - some computers have so much interference that signal noise becomes a serious problem. If you are currently satisfied with your sound card recordings, an extra $59.99 may not be justified. On the other hand, if you are an audiophile with a sensitivity to the signal degradation of your internal sound card, the AN1 may be what you are looking for. As with all audio devices, the final say in audio quality rests in each users’ hands, and I can only say that I preferred the AN1 recordings, while others indicated otherwise.

Under side of the AN1

For those who are still waiting for a working digital recording solution, the upcoming MD-Port DG1 might just do the trick, and THAT is something that really might be worth looking into, since Xitel tells me that the DG1 allows auto track marks during digital recording of MP3s, and which is definitely the biggest problem in recording MP3s digitally to MD.

Overall Score: 81%

send article   hardware newsletter   article comments (7)   print

Submit our article to: Digg this! del.icio.us