Hi all,
 
I´m posting this to clarify a piece of partial information about the frequency response of the Nu Audio card.
 
I bought this card to take audio measurements in my lab, replacing an old model from another vendor, very linear also, that, after many years of heavy use, has had a defect, non-serviceable.
I chose NU Audio because of the sampling rates available, announced on the Nu Audio site (up to 384kHz in analog inputs and outputs).
 
When the card arrived, I noticed two things:
 
- the distortion (THD, THD+Noise, and ID) achieved with the "audiophile" ICs socketed there, as engineered by Audio Note, was bad, regarding the use that was my target (audio measurements), so I changed it with real hi-fidelity ICs (LME49990 and LME49720) and the performance in loopback was very impressive, reaching <0,0002% residual. The card with this IC is really hard to beat in this regard;
 
- the frequency response, in any sampling frequency over 96kHz, was limited to approx. 56kHz (loopback). Even in 384kHz sampling, there is this limitation. My old card has 92kHz frequency response at 192kHz sampling, as specified in the manual. Theoretically, the Nu can achieve near 192kHz FR at 384kHz, but 120kHz or a bit more would be enough for audio measurements. 
 
So, I contacted the NU Audio´s support and asked about the second observation and Lee Meisner was very kind to verify this limitation. He verified that this is a real limitation of the card, and after I argued that it does not make sense in a stereo card which is capable of 384kHz sampling rates, he tried to see if a modification, by Audio Note´s engineering, in the firmware was possible to enable wider FR on the Nu Audio card.
 
I´m waiting for near a year for some solution and I even asked Lee about some info about how to change it in the hardware, since I´m capable of modifying the card to do this.
 
A few weeks ago, after my last request for an evaluation on the question, Lee kindly said that it is not a priority for them, so I have to live with the limitation of the card.
 
So, since there is just the sampling rate announced, in the Analog Section of the tech specs (as can be seen in the file attached to this message) and not the FR, it could be interpreted as misleading advertising, and I suggested Lee change it in the Nu´s specs page. 
 
Considering that the specifications didn´t change since then on the site, I decided to start this thread just to advise the users about the limitation. It is not very important for normal auditions, but the lack of this information made me buy a card, among some other choices, that does not fill my needs.
 
It is a good card, however, and it worths the cost, for normal auditions. I hope EVGA can change the specs or add the FR on that for the sake of clarity.
 
Regards,
 
 

Actually, sampling rates over 44.1kHz are very useful for measurements and other applications too. The problem is, IMHO,  when a vendor announces specifications that are not real or are incomplete, like those in the EVGA NU Card. Many people, like me, believe in the specs and buy considering it. It was the case for me, unfortunately. And, BTW, EVGA still  shows the false/dubious claim about frequency response even after I show to Lee that it is not correct. If there were correct specs there, I would buy another card.

Humm... it seems you:
- do not understand how and why "unofficial(???) and uncertified" lab equipment is necessary or useful;
- do not understand that I am not talking about "audio recording and audio playback", or even streaming;
- do not understand the principles of audio measurement and other ultrasonic measurement necessities in an electronic´s bench;
- do not understand the principles of audio analysis and the necessity of a flat frequency response inband, so as the necessity of the extension of the frequency response on this matter.
 
Some useful links can help you, I think:
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.5063812#_i13
https://www.ti.com/lit/an/slaa313a/slaa313a.pdf?ts=1629116358133&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F
https://www.ti.com/lit/an/slaa907c/slaa907c.pdf?ts=1629073100037&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F
 
 
So, not considering the points quoted (I´ll not debate those here), the real question (my question and the motivation to start this thread) is: this manufacturer shows useless specifications for their audio products, and people can be fooled by it, like me. If I want this audio card for reproducing ultrasonic noises to my dog, nobody has anything to do with it, and the card must offer a frequency response compatible with the specs or the manufacturer must quote the limitation in the specs. 
 
And, the most important here, the misleading info still there, on the site. That is why I opened the thread.
 
Regards ,

"Your point is that a marketing gimmick is misleading, and my point is "duh"."
 
No. My point is a strange thing nowadays... it´s called honesty... "duh"...

I am confused. Is there any consumer sound card which produces 192 or 384 kHz audio output? No? Ok, so then I don't know why you think I am derailing the conversation or being unhelful. I am just pointing out that it was a gimmicky number in the first place. It was always misleading. It's not just EVGA who is being misleading. The audio industry is being misleading; and EVGA simply has to play the same game to be on the same level.

The 192 kHz and 384 kHz stuff is just a gimmicky intermediate step. Neither the input (microphone and input circuitry) nor the output (speaker and output circuitry) can handle those audio frequencies. Humans can't hear those frequencies anyway. It has always been a gimmick.

If you want to use lab equipment, buy lab equipment.

This is one.

And other.

I´m hiding because it is an EVGA Forum, but, since you want to know, the manufacturers are Asus (manual) and RME (site).
 
I suggest you read the first post again and see "specifications". Since there is no information about FR, the sampling rate alone is misleading or "tricky" info, where they don´t want to inform the FR limitation to the customers and wanna show capabilities that are useless without the correspondence in the analog domain. It seems you're not familiarized with technical specs, because there is no "magic" in the specs. It´s said that the frequency input (analog input) is 96kHz bandwidth and results in a frequency response of 90kHz (input is different from sampling, ok?). You´re making confusion, not the specs.
  
 
Regards,

They don't say because there is a natural roll-off in real-life low pass filters and circuits and they are informing the difference regarding the theoretical perfect frequency reproduction in 192kHz sampling (96 kHz). They are saying that, in this case (the max sampling rate of this card is 192kHz and I measured this FR, because I have one), there is a limitation other than the sampling rate limit. See the other specs showed. They inform 92kHz and 92.7kHz for 192kHz sampling rate. 
 
Regards, 

These sound cards are not designed to be an audio analyzers.  EVGA markets this, with all the standard industry gimmickry, to users who aren't using these as audio analyzers.  I think EVGA is purposely vague.  EVGA is historically extremely vague with all of its products.
 
We'll agree to disagree.

BLMLN
The question here is not the use. the question is the misleading specifications.

EVGA does not advertise frequency response, therefore there is nothing for EVGA to correct.  The sample rate of audio was misleading from the start, industry-wide.

BLMLN
The AD and DA sections are, normally, the same as the dedicated devices: www.virtins.com.

Using a PC sound card as an oscilloscope is a joke.  You can buy so much better -- one manufactured decades ago -- for less than $200.  You can't buy an entire PC for that price.  Why would you want to use a PC sound card, with extreme frequency limits and inaccuracies, at a higher price?
 

As I showed you it is not an industry-wide behavior and it is a lack of technical info.

You keep arguing about whether frequency response is advertised or not, and whether the advertised frequency response is truthful.  That isn't my argument.  My argument about "industry-wide behavior" is about supposedly recording and playing audio at absurdly high sample rates.  I don't know what the disconnect is.  My point is, that this sound card is sold as a sound card using industry-wide gimmickry regarding whether or not absurdly high sample rate somewhere in the process is a valuable feature.
 
EVGA is bound by industry-wide gimmickry to advertise industry-wide gimmickry in order to compete.  I am not referring to frequency response.  I am referring to the gimmickry which made YOU believe that the card could record or play absurdly high frequencies in the first place.  Let's be honest, the VAST MAJORITY of sound cards don't advertise (or don't accurately advertise) their frequency response, and the VAST MAJORITY with high sample rates are physically restricted in their actual frequency response.
 
I mean, I agree with you that it is a gimmick.  And I agree with you that it would be nice if EVGA was more transparent about how much of a gimmick it is, but you have to understand why EVGA has its hands tied and has to carry on the charade, right?  It's a matter of competing in an industry which has purposely chosen to be deceptive.

Look at that aliasing. Oof, that's terrible.
Ok, you don't want a cheap old oscilloscope? How about a $500 modern oscilloscope instead?
Scientists use sound cards as an oscilloscope? I doubt that.

Here you can make a complaint or suggestion to EVGA:
https://www.evga.com/support/suggestions.asp

BLMLN
There is no aliasing measurement in an analog preamplifier or amplifier... 

Eh? What are you on about? Aliasing is not analog.
Aliasing is visible in your screenshot. Indicating that your PC sound card oscilloscope needs more samples per second for the signal you are measuring. In other words, why aren't you using a better oscilloscope instead of complaining here that the NU Audio card is a bad oscilloscope?

Signal analyzers are a common function in oscilloscopes. You call it an "audio analyzer", but what makes it not a "signal analyzer"?

This is a user to user forum. Submit your complaints or suggestions to EVGA here:
https://www.evga.com/support/suggestions.asp

BLMLN
The sampling rate I can change if I want, It is not a scope, and it does not matter in this case.

It does matter. Aliasing indicates that you aren't taking enough samples to catch all of the frequencies present in the signal. Thus, the data you are collecting is inaccurate. Garbage in, garbage out.