Looking for an audio analyzer

[ci11]

Why are they different? 

They are different because soundcards typically do not include DSPs for front-end signal processing, which are almost always implemented in high-end analyzers to improve accuracy. The incoming signal is scrubbed then passed onto 32-bit or higher-precision DSPs to do the processing in the digital domain. Soundcards may have analog "processing" but the intent is very different hence the design would have to follow suit.

This is not the case.  I know many very famous engineers who never use headphones and who never check on the mains (lots of newer studios don't have mains and in older spaces they often sounded dreadful)."

If you are Al Schmidt or Ed Cherney, sure, you would probably skip not only headphones, but a few other steps because you have 40+ years under your belt. But if you were hired by Al Schmidt or Ed Cherney to assistant-produce at the board and you left a few glitches in a pricey session by not triple-checking before the talent got back on their private jet heading to their next gig, you'd be toast on the spot - guaranteed. Perhaps "engineers" only tracking and mixing on Yamaha NS-10s are the real reasons why recordings sound the way they do now, despite all the much better tools available in modern rooms.

[ruairi]

ci11,

There's no question that a high end analyzer has extras that a sound card does not, auto ranging being the most important, input impedance switching is another, on some units there are analog notch filters pre A/D.  I don't really understand your point re dsp.  Sure, the Apx555 has some tricks up it's sleeve to lower distortion in the analyzer section but typically analyzers are looking to digitize the signal with the least distortion, then analyze.

My point is that you can do very real work with a sound card and software once you understand the principles involved.  Would I prefer a real audio analyzer?  Sure, but I can go very far with a sound card and REW.  The O.P. will find the complexity of something like an A.P. daunting and will be limited by his understanding and technique until he has some experience measuring acoustically and electrically.  I've measured power amps, very large SSL mixing consoles, many many 6 figure speaker systems and lots of audio hardware with an interface and free software.  This is real work, in the field for professional clients. 

Let's not argue about your second point.  I live in that world here in L.A. and work with engineers and producers all day long at every level from beginner to the top level. You paint a picture from a very different era.

Why are they different? 

They are different because soundcards typically do not include DSPs for front-end signal processing, which are almost always implemented in high-end analyzers to improve accuracy. The incoming signal is scrubbed then passed onto 32-bit or higher-precision DSPs to do the processing in the digital domain. Soundcards may have analog "processing" but the intent is very different hence the design would have to follow suit. Perhaps "engineers" only tracking and mixing on Yamaha NS-10s are the real reasons why recording sound the way they do now, despite all the much better tools available in modern rooms.

This is not the case.  I know many very famous engineers who never use headphones and who never check on the mains (lots of newer studios don't have mains and in older spaces they often sounded dreadful)."

If you are Al Schmidt or Ed Cherney, sure, you would probably skip not only headphones, but a few other steps because you have 40+ years under your belt. But if you were hired by Al Schmidt or Ed Cherney to assistant-produce at the board and you left a few glitches in a pricey session by not triple-checking before the talent got back on their private jet heading to their next gig, you'd be toast on the spot - guaranteed.

[alex89]

I've measured power amps, very large SSL mixing consoles, many many 6 figure speaker systems and lots of audio hardware with an interface and free software.  This is real work, in the field for professional clients.

What is your interface of choice for such a job ?

[ruairi]

I'm using a Prism Sound Lyra 1. In the interests of full disclosure I do some work with Prism's U.S. distributor, mostly bench repair work for the Maselec line of outboard gear.  I've used a variety of interfaces in the past though. 

[ci11]

There's no question that a high end analyzer has extras that a sound card does not, auto ranging being the most important, input impedance switching is another, on some units there are analog notch filters pre A/D.  I don't really understand your point re dsp.  Sure, the Apx555 has some tricks up it's sleeve to lower distortion in the analyzer section but typically analyzers are looking to digitize the signal with the least distortion, then analyze.

My point is that you can do very real work with a sound card and software once you understand the principles involved.  Would I prefer a real audio analyzer?  Sure, but I can go very far with a sound card and REW.  The O.P. will find the complexity of something like an A.P. daunting and will be limited by his understanding and technique until he has some experience measuring acoustically and electrically.  I've measured power amps, very large SSL mixing consoles, many many 6 figure speaker systems and lots of audio hardware with an interface and free software.  This is real work, in the field for professional clients. 

Let's not argue about your second point.  I live in that world here in L.A. and work with engineers and producers all day long at every level from beginner to the top level. You paint a picture from a very different era.

I hope my points are helpful to address the OP's applications. These comments were intended to urge the OP - or anyone - to thoroughly understand their application needs and pro's can con's of each option before being lured into decisions based on a seemingly low entry threshold, be it price or complexity.

Not many people discuss the real differences between soundcard-based solutions and current, purpose-built audio analyzers costing much more, probably because few think they could ever afford them so it is easy to deny their significance. But these differences are there not only for those who need them and are willing to pay for them, but help define or inspire future requirements for hardware and software developers, and they warrant discussion. Whether they are necessary is an individual decision, but the state of the art is moving forward, albeit slowly as they start bumping into limits imposed by physics.

"I don't really understand your point re dsp" Attached are 2 pictures lifted from AP and R&S literature that describe the front-end processing of their analyzers. These have nothing to do lowering THD+N, that's something different implemented elsewhere. Compare their approach to soundcard-based solutions, and the difference is obvious. These circuits simply do not exist on soundcards or analog-based outboards. They help the user see better and analyze more. Again, perhaps this difference is not needed or justified, but the current capabilities are clear and deserve to be mentioned. Even if some aspiring developer writes this pre-processing for a Raspberry Pi and put the software on Github for free, a tracking analog notch filter setup and input protection is not a trivial add-on to a soundcard.

The "picture I painted" is that of successful engineers who have a backlog of work because they deliver good results every time, on time and with no excuses or budget overrun drama becasue they run a tight ship. Many people don't want to or even need to work that way, today, yesterday or tomorrow in LA, Nashville or NYC. That's is not the point relevant to this discussion - the point is that headphones reveal more details that can easily be lost, and those details may point to problems that started somewhere else, and hence the need for better-performing instruments to chase after those root causes - if so desired.

[ruairi]

ci11,

Let's not derail the thread by arguing.  I agree with you that anything we can do to help the O.P. understand the issues is useful to him and possibly others.  Again I state that the limiting factor for now will be the O.P.'s understanding of the issues and techniques, not the gear.  Investing is higher end gear makes little sense (and I love high end test gear!).  I don't mean that in a demeaning way at all, I expect that when I finally get my hands on an APx555 I will be the limiting factor too :-)

As far as I can tell, all the DSP I see outlined in both of your examples below is handled in software in a typical sound card based solution.  The hardware tracking analog filter you mentioned was already discussed in a previous post of mine and is part of yielding the higher performance dedicated gear can give.

There are real differences between dedicated audio test gear and bodged together solutions, some of which will matter to the O.P. and some of which may not. The NWavguy blog does a pretty good job of talking through some of these issues - http://nwavguy.blogspot.com

The DIYaudio forum is another great resource.

I agree that quality matters. I pursue it relentlessly in my mastering work, the gear I use, room I work in etc.  I want and need gear that can measure lower levels of distortion, and as you say others will not need that or care.

[_Wim_]

Attached are 2 pictures lifted from AP and R&S literature that describe the front-end processing of their analyzers. These have nothing to do lowering THD+N, that's something different implemented elsewhere.

These have almost exclusively to do with improving THD+N. By notching out the test signal (sine), and amplifiing the remaining signal, one can see the lower harmonic distortions much better, because the distortion signals are now amplified, and the test signal is not (otherwise it would be impossible to amplify the input, because the ADC will be overloaded).

If I want to go really low in THD measurements, I do exactly the same by putting Bob Cordell distortion magnifier (http://www.cordellaudio.com/instrumentation/distortion_magnifier.shtml) in front of my sound card. This unit subtracts the test signal from the return signal of the DUT. This distortion magnifier can be bought in a kit from 128 from pilghamaudio (see link at cordellaudio site).

As discussed before, sometimes you need to be a little more creative than having an all in one solution, but very very good results can be obtained using affordable gear. As also said before, the main difficulty is understanding what to measure, and interpreting the result correctly, and the audio precision tools want help in that department

[ci11]

There are real differences between dedicated audio test gear and bodged together solutions, some of which will matter to the O.P. and some of which may not. The NWavguy blog does a pretty good job of talking through some of these issues - http://nwavguy.blogspot.com

Agreed.

The goals dictate the means. With a plethora of available options, many who read these posts do not get a full pictures. Sometimes, it helps to expand, and other times to focus. In this thread, I hope it is clear that there are as many ways to skin the cat as there are opinions, but some very smart people have made important advances to bring more light to the matter. I offered my comments based on this exact spirit.

I wish you well.

[ci11]

These have almost exclusively to do with improving THD+N.

Yes, this processing may possibly lower the THD+N of an input signal but its primary purpose is to clean up a "dirty" signal for the ADC before sending it to the DSP for processing. The THD+N improvement circuit for the sine wave output of the internal generator in an APx555 (to lower it from -117db to <-122dB) is a separate matter, and that is what I was referring to.

As discussed before, sometimes you need to be a little more creative than having an all in one solution, but very very good results can be obtained using affordable gear. As also said before, the main difficulty is understanding what to measure, and interpreting the result correctly, and the audio precision tools want help in that department

Agreed. There is quite a learning curve, and it would be great if analyzers can be rented so those interested can use it on real projects to see if it is their "cup of tea" and it can do their job.

[amirm]

THD+N is perceptually blind.  That is, its value does not correlate with how we hear (i.e. ignores masking thresholds).  For that reason I don't use THD analysis in my AP.  Just do a spectrum analysis with the original signal still there and look at the distortions spurs. 

Same thing can be done in software and computer power is superior there to all-in-one-boxes.  The down side is knowing what you are doing with respect to selecting windowing function and such.

BTW, I just met with Prism Sound folks at CES and because of Brexit, they said the retail price has dropped $2000 and you can now buy their analyzer for $6K!  Pretty cheap in my book. 

[1audio]

For what its worth I use regularly a Boonton 1120, a modified Shibasoku 725, a QA401 and 4 different soundcards. Its not the tools but knowing what to look for. Any of these can show you pretty much any aberration if you know what to look for.

The QA401 + a handful of BNC-RCA or BNC-Banana adapters makes it compatible with 90% of anything you may want to do. There was a possible promise of a standard audio driver for the QA401 but not yet. And there is an API if you want to create specific tests or test suites. I think its the best value simple because it will just work. A sound card + HPw works or Arta or REW or RMAA or . . . will work fine after you sort it out which could take some time even if you have done it before. Even RMAA which is simple can lead you astray if you don't have the right interfaces selected etc.

Jen's analyzer will be at least 2X a QA401. And its slightly better than an Emu 1616M or 1212M on the ADC (better analog) but the EMU DAC is not as good. (I mostly use the EMU in XP for stability but Win 10 is OK with a clean install). The QA401 has an automatic input attenuator but is still limited on its peak input. Same for most audio stuff. Very few won't smoke when measuring AC line distortion for example.

However I need to measure everything from headphones and speakers to SOTA DAC's so many options are needed. Some which can't be done with an APx555 without an additional $10K of addons.

The RME babyface would be a great starting point with software (RMAA?) and some interface cable/adapters. Learn how to make some measurements and how to see when its all lying to you. When you need more look at the options.

[DaJMasta]

Thanks for all the input so far, the discussion of the differences between the frontends of an audio analyzer vs. that of a soundcard have been helpful too.

I think part of the appeal of a purpose-built analyzer, at least initially, was that it was so well characterized.  If I make a mistake in taking a measurement and realize it, then the finger can almost never be pointed at an analyzer because all the specs are laid out and built to be stable.  It's been amazing to me how many high-end interfaces there are available which don't even have a manufacturer-specified noise floor or THD rating, but every dedicated analyzer will have data on that, evenness of frequency response, and many other aspects.  Looking around, there has been some helpful info in the form of consumer run tests of some of these itnerfaces, but the "guarantee" of reputable test equipment has it's appeal.

That said, most of the cheaper, but still well performing, dedicated analyzers aren't as well suited for my FFT tasks as a soundcard is.  All-in-one units like the UPL make extended data capture a pain, and computer-attached units like the ATS-2 have options, but without ASIO or other sound drivers, don't have easy ways of getting that data into other software, some of which seems ideal for the kinds of recording and visualization I want to do.

Not being in an industrial environment or testing totally unknown systems means the input protection and attenuation options are less important, and if I really wanted absolutely quantifiable numbers for signal strength and whatnot.... I can just use my multimeter or scope to get the voltage of a sine at X output level and do a little math to convert the axes to volts or what have you.

I've also been sort of insisting on the THD+N figure specifically for the +N, something I've run into issues with before.  I've had pretty significant hum on supposedly good internal PC sound cards, and have only been satisfied with the noise floor for normal recording levels with my latest refresh of equipment - both the mics and the interfaces I've been using before have been audible.  While I don't expect to be hearing noise under -100dB or something, I have heard some in the -90s, so I wanted to aim as low as possible to avoid issues with it, even if the parts of the signal I probably care about are still well above even the audible noise floors.

The EMU cards sound like great choices, and they're pretty cheap on ebay right now, but they're internal and I don't want to be hauling around a desktop to take measurements... plus my previous issues with in-case emi or power conditioning related hum.  Looking at lots of external interfaces, the newer Motu 624 looks like a good contender.  Notably lower advertised noise floor than the babyface pro at only slightly more price, a compact size, and the signal paths seem to be the same hardware as the Motu 1248, which has been characterized by some end users and seems to meet its spec and have very flat frequency response.  A Prism dScope III ticks all the boxes across the board and seems like a great unit for the $6000 or so price tag..... but that's still quite a price tag, and I think a lot of its capability would be lost on my applications.

I agree the QA401 seems like a clear winner for general audio testing in terms of value for performance, but if I can get a good preamp with phantom, the right connectors, standard sound drivers to use whatever software I want, and a lower noise floor out of an interface, I think it's a better choice for me.

So that's the plan for now, a good interface coupled with rightmark and spectrum lab because they're free.  Once I get a better feel for the software side and the measurements/data recording I want to do, I can invest as needed in a software suite.

[amirm]

I think part of the appeal of a purpose-built analyzer, at least initially, was that it was so well characterized.  If I make a mistake in taking a measurement and realize it, then the finger can almost never be pointed at an analyzer because all the specs are laid out and built to be stable.

This is by far the reason I use my Audio Precision.  I bought a TI EVM with their nice ADCs and AES capture but I had no idea what it was supposed to have spec-wise.  I publish my results so I need others to be able to trust and/or repeat them.  With sound card you just can't do that.  There are also potential issues around ground loops and such with PC cards which are reduced if not avoided by using an external analyzer.

Still, the cost is just way too high for satisfying one's curiosity and or casual measurements.  So going with the PC solution as you mention is the right path for you for sure for now.

[ci11]

Not being in an industrial environment or testing totally unknown systems means the input protection and attenuation options are less important, and if I really wanted absolutely quantifiable numbers for signal strength and whatnot.... I can just use my multimeter or scope to get the voltage of a sine at X output level and do a little math to convert the axes to volts or what have you.

Probably a workable idea but the linearity and flatness of frequency response of the DMM and especially a scope you intend to use should be checked since accuracy at audio frequency bandwidth is not what the designers of these devices usually have in mind. Many DMMs can only measure Vrms out several hundred Hz and not beyond.

The EMU cards sound like great choices, and they're pretty cheap on ebay right now, but they're internal and I don't want to be hauling around a desktop to take measurements... plus my previous issues with in-case emi or power conditioning related hum. 

The E-MU 1616m was made with 3 different interfaces: PCI, PCIe for desktop and a Cardbus interface for use with laptops. All function equally well. And the E-MU 1616m "Microdock", the breakout box where all connections are made to analog and digital I/O, supplies 48V Phantom on both mic input channels.

Also attached is a plot from the noise floor plot of my 1616m using ARTA. Input was shorted but plot used the Hanning window but not averaged. Averaged noise floor would be around -150dB for this setup. The 1616m was plugged into wall AC and there does not appear to be an issue with EMI or hum, even at 60/120Hz here.

[DaJMasta]

Very impressive!  I think all I had seen on ebay was the internal card versions, and PCMCIA would need an adapter for modern laptops (I've had a couple laptops since I had one with a PCMCIA slot!), but adapters certainly do exist.

I remember a little after when Creative bought them, I was looking at sound cards including a couple of E-MU options.  I remember them not actually being too expensive, it's neat to think they were well enough designed to stand up so well for so long.  Given that they were priced to compete with high end consumer options, I wouldn't have expected the longevity.

[ci11]

Very impressive!  I think all I had seen on ebay was the internal card versions, and PCMCIA would need an adapter for modern laptops (I've had a couple laptops since I had one with a PCMCIA slot!), but adapters certainly do exist.

I remember a little after when Creative bought them, I was looking at sound cards including a couple of E-MU options.  I remember them not actually being too expensive, it's neat to think they were well enough designed to stand up so well for so long.  Given that they were priced to compete with high end consumer options, I wouldn't have expected the longevity.

They are out there so patience will be rewarded. They are not always well kept or maintained by previous owners, and they do run hot. So buy carefully and be prepared to re-cap the entire box. Attached are the before- and after- of the re-cap of the top PCB on the 1616m to complement the bottom PCB pictures that had already been listed earlier in this thread. The number of popped caps can be clearly seen in the before- picture.

Good luck.

[AndreyS]

They are out there so patience will be rewarded. They are not always well kept or maintained by previous owners, and they do run hot. So buy carefully and be prepared to re-cap the entire box. Attached are the before- and after- of the re-cap of the top PCB on the 1616m to complement the bottom PCB pictures that had already been listed earlier in this thread. The number of popped caps can be clearly seen in the before- picture.

Good luck.

What values of the caps have you soldered to A+ A- B+ B- of akm IC and to 2068 between V+ AGND and V-?

[ci11]

They are out there so patience will be rewarded. They are not always well kept or maintained by previous owners, and they do run hot. So buy carefully and be prepared to re-cap the entire box. Attached are the before- and after- of the re-cap of the top PCB on the 1616m to complement the bottom PCB pictures that had already been listed earlier in this thread. The number of popped caps can be clearly seen in the before- picture.

Good luck.

What values of the caps have you soldered to A+ A- B+ B- of akm IC and to 2068 between V+ AGND and V-?

Please download the picture from the post, put red circles where you want the caps identified and I will get the type and values for you.

[AndreyS]

Please download the picture from the post, put red circles where you want the caps identified and I will get the type and values for you.

[ci11]

Please download the picture from the post, put red circles where you want the caps identified and I will get the type and values for you.

Here are Mouser PNs for the caps used:

1. Blue tops - 661-APSE6R3L561MF08S

2. Red tops - 647-RNE1C101MDS1 - these are also used near the 2068s.

Attached is a closer look at them from another angle.

[1audio]

FWIW here are directions for getting the EMU 1616/1212 running in current Win 10: https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=529349 I can vouch that they do work, at least in my system.

[Electro Fan]

Thanks for all the input so far, the discussion of the differences between the frontends of an audio analyzer vs. that of a soundcard have been helpful too.

So that's the plan for now, a good interface coupled with rightmark and spectrum lab because they're free.  Once I get a better feel for the software side and the measurements/data recording I want to do, I can invest as needed in a software suite.

I think you have been asking good questions.  Fwiw, I think someone could download the free version of something like this and learn a lot with a sound card in a PC plus a minimal investment in a mic and phantom power supply.

https://trueaudio.com/rta_selection_guide.htm

Just follow the hardware suggestions. The free version will give way to a paid version and the little bit of entry hardware will cost still more, so this path is not free for long but it can be a good starting point.

In a few days the test signal generation, sweeps, equalizations, and lots of measuring would likely be enlightening - which in turn would help navigate the rabbit hole. 

What I think you might find near the bottom of the rabbit whole is that you can have test equipment that would make Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard envious and you can design and build or buy exquisite hifi gear (speakers, amp, preamp, source players, etc) and you can work your butt off to get the measurements to coincide with what you are hearing and vice versa, but you will never fully get “there” until you address the listening room acoustics.  All the gear inside the system is not the full system; the room is a MAJOR part of the system.  And when you realize the dimensions and construction techniques needed to address the room the cost for all the test gear and hifi gear might start to look like just a moderate % of the room treatment costs. 

This is not to say there aren’t clever practical cost-effective solutions but rather that the sooner you see the impact the room has on the speakers (in concert with speaker and listening position placement) the sooner you will start to recognize the full scope of the rabbit hole. 

Once you settle in on speaker design that will inform some electronics requirements, and it can be an iterative process, of course. Good electronics and a good source player can reveal some pretty exciting nuances but the frequency response and spatial imaging (including the sense of “air”, “transparency”, “definition”, “detail”, “transient response”, “slam”, “boom”, yada yada) are all a result of eliminating distortions (especially distortive interactions) that have to be first managed at the speaker/room level before the electronics can fully do their magic on a more subtle level - all of which will be beholden to the reflections and nulls that will dictate timing interactions that will have both a coarse and a subtle impact on what reaches your ears - so the room must (should) be addressed before all the nuances can fully surface.  If you get this far it will make you marvel at how all the original detailed content ever got captured on the source media in the first place.

Overall it can be a very fun and rewarding journey. 

Of course hifi can be intrinsically rewarding without addressing any of this.  Just install whatever hifi gear in some room and you can hear the Beatles and Beethoven.  It’s just a matter of how accurately you want to reproduce the sound of what was recorded - how much high fidelity (faithfulness to the original) you want, and how much you want to measure and understand what causes what.

Net, net:  The suggestion on starting with the sound card, software, and mic is that it will (should) quickly show an experimenting user the impact of the room that is almost certainly going to be a major part of the system and the system’s performance.

[CeeZett]

Hello guys, newbie here (but lurking around for years), first post.

Recently I aquired a complete 1616m for quite cheap.
Looks good from the outside. Seems hardly used.

Plugged in the power supply (which BTW get`s freaking hot, is this normal?) and seems to work too.
Currrently I am about to set up a laptop system for the EMU cardbus which came with it.
I want to use it as an audio measurement system as discussed here.

Took off the hood of the 1616m Microdock. Just so far that I can peak inside but have not (yet) completely disassembled it.
Caps seem to look still okay too, at least as far as I can see but regardless I would want to change them ALL as they are ALL crap and at least those in the power-supply will ALL fail (sooner or later).
I still don`t get it, how in an otherwise fine instrument, one could put in such a load of junk (and there are MANY caps inside).

As some of You have already done excactly what I still intend to do, I would like to ask if someone could post a list of all the caps in the EMU-1616m Microdock with values (µF/voltage-rating) and if possible lead spacing as well?
Would be really grateful as it would spare me to disassemble (+ figure this out myself) and reassemble the thing twice.

[1audio]

The 1616M is a remarkable product but having inadvertantly fried one its not easy to get back together. There are two independent sets of pin headers from top to bottom that must be correct or it will become toast.
The caps are not great, however if it has seen little use changing them all out is a lot of hassle for little return. I'm sure the BOM for all those caps ($) had a lot of influence into the decisions.
I think I collected most of the available reverse engineering on it. If asked I'll look for it. Someone worked out how to hack the firmware to get it to work on Win10. I have those notes somewhere. Finding a computer with a cardbus interface will not be easy. I use a desktop with the desktop interface.
It has 6 channels of AK5394A ADC, the best performing ADC from AKM. It also has a plethora of JRC opamps that seem to be pretty good.
The power supply should not be that hot. I got some generic 48V supplies that work fine as a substitute.

[CeeZett]

Hello 1audio,

I have read Your posts over at diyaudio about the EMU 1616 and took quite a few notes. 
Thanks for that and thanks for Your reply!
Good to know, to have in mind and to take extra care about what You mentioned regarding the pin headers!
Already yesterday I was almost about to dismantle the EMU - but wimped out...

Yes, judged by the cosmetic appearance I think my EMU 1616 has seen little use but that does not mean much IMO. Could be it was just handled gently.
And only a few days ago I had a failure with another oldie but goodie which I know was hardly used. A Terratec Phase X24 FW I still use occasionally.
Although it is really old as well, I still like it a lot not only for it`s headamp and use it with my desktop PC (win7). 
However, have not used the Phase X24 a couple of years. Switched it on recently, it came on but did not work properly anymore (sound just stopped after a few minutes).
Took it apart and the first thing I noticed was one cap in the power-supply already bulging. That was definitely not the case before, because when I got it, I opened it up, of course.
That means the cap has gone bad meanwhile, even without using the gear. While I was at it, measured a few other caps. Some more dead or at least highly suspicious.
IMO does not make much sense to change just the already obviously bad ones.
Same as with the EMU, the only ones which could be kept in are the coupling caps, maybe, I believe.

I am aware that changing the caps is a lot of work and it won`t be easy. More so as I don`t have a vacuum desoldering station.
Would have to do it the "old way" with desoldering braid and/or manual desoldering pump. Maybe it is time to invest in a proper desoldering tool eventually...
From what I have read, changing anything else besides the caps does not bring noticeable improvement, if at all. So I will leave it at that.

>> Cardbus. Not long ago I bought a second Dell Latitude E6500 notebook just for the EMU and older software I still want to use.
My first DELL I bought second hand >>10 years ago. Still in use and still going strong (for what I use it anyway). I love these DELLs.
Today they are dirt cheap and go for only a couple of bucks. The EMU 1616m (+ Cardbus + 2 PCI cards + 2 Power supplies) + the DELL did cost me only slightly >100€ together.
Not bad for something what could potentially almost rival an AP for audio stuff (minus of course the attenuators etc., etc. the AP has to offer).
Installed dual-boot WinXP and Win7 on the DELL and deactivated all the stuff I don`t need. So no need for me to hassle around with Win10 (I really hate anything >Win7).

I still need a lot of TRS cables for the 1616m though, which will cost me quite somewhat, even when soldering the cables myself.

My 1616m came with 2 MEAN-WELL 18W/48V power-supplies. Both get hot. Measured the power consumption: 14-15W. So just shy of the rated 18W.
Seems EMU cheaped out not only on caps but on the power-supply as well.
Or maybe this is a sign that already something in the EMU Microdock does not work as it should (albeit it seems to work okay, as far as I can tell)?
As I don`t like things running so hot, I will replace the Mean-Well with something more powerful and somewhat better specs wise, if possible.
Maybe a PS with better specs (output ripple) can have an impact on overall quality as well. Maybe not.

So, if nobody comes up for the EMU 1616m with something similar as on the attached picture (or a list of caps, so I can order parts, without having to disassemble the EMU first)
I have done (precautionary) for the Phase X24-FW years ago, (unfortunately) I have to do it myself.....