Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: guncrasher on August 23, 2014, 10:03:55 PM
-
I am looking for a good 7.1 sound card. I just drove 60 miles today to get the audigy rx for my razer tiamat 7.1 headset and it wont work. looks like the audigy combines the middle and rear speakers in one jack. otherwise the sound is great.
any suggestions? my mobo has a good 7.1 but not as good as a separate card.
my current sound card is a sound blaster z. great card but only 5.1. I did get the roccat kave 5.1 but had to return it as there's a bit of hissing when you have mike on but no sound coming thru. bass on the kave is awesome. quality is good. but the razer tiamat blows them away.
semp
-
Those square head band things hurt my head had to velcro my old head band foam on to it
The Tiamat is better?
The kave 5.1 is awesome
-
Semp
Here is the one I use and its awesome. http://www.soundblaster.com/products/Sound-Blaster-X-Fi-Titanium-HD.aspx .. it has great sound and gold connectors.. check it out it might be what you are looking for.
LawnDart
-
These are 7.1?.
-
Those square head band things hurt my head had to velcro my old head band foam on to it
The Tiamat is better?
The kave 5.1 is awesome
kave is awesome. tianman is zack awesome.
That card is 5.1
semp
-
You fell for 7.1, huh? Okay, here is a partial list, which does not imply my endorsement.
Audigy RX 7.1
X-Fi Xtreme Audio PCI
X-Fi Xtreme Audio PCI Express
X-Fi Titanium PCI Express
X-Fi Titanium Fatality Professional Series PCI Express (I approve of this one)
X-Fi Titanium HD Internal
Xonar DS 7.1
Xonar DX/XD
Xonar Essence STX II 7.1 (I approve)
EDIT: There is also a daughter card upgrade for the Xonar Essence ST to upgrade it to 7.1 (Xonar H6 7.1 Channel Upgrade)
-
Can you tell the difference between 5.1 and 7.1?? LOL
LawnDart
-
I feel it is a better system for speakers in entertainment rooms, so that the room is filled with coverage. In a headset I don't know of any human that can tell the difference.
-
I feel it is a better system for speakers in entertainment rooms, so that the room is filled with coverage. In a headset I don't know of any human that can tell the difference.
it's more the quality of the sound itself rather than 7.1 or 5.1. I bought both the 5.1 kave which is awesome and the 7.1 tiaman which is even better. the problem is finding a sound card that actually has true 7.1 outputs that match the tiaman 7.1.
I bought the audigy rx 7.1 sends middle and rear speaker thru the same output while the tiaman has separate . which means I can only have 5.1. was gonna keep this card, but it keeps giving me stutters in both aces high and wot.
the x-f1 titanium hd internal is only 5.1. while the fatality professional looks like it's what I need amazon sells them for 250 bucks. way too much for me. same for the essence stx II.
think I am gonna get either the xonar dsx 7.1 selling for 54 bucks or the soundblaster xfi extreme which is refurbished and on sale for 20 bucks.
I have a 25$ gift card to newegg due to price matching on the headset. funny thing is that I had the sb xfi extreme but gave it away when i bought the soundblaster z. I should have kept it but I had it in my closet for over a year and somebody else needed one.
semp
-
If you have ab onboard 7.1 sound on a somewhat current MB then you are probably throwing money away.
I'd save instead for a different upgrade then audio. Personally.
-
Nope. Even current onboard is a poor man's alternative, offers latency filled 3D (if any), and otherwise strictly low-end performance.
-
Nope. Even current onboard is a poor man's alternative, offers latency filled 3D (if any), and otherwise strictly low-end performance.
Agreed. Nothing beats a good sound card.
-
well in my case so far nothing beats the sound from my mobo. waiting for my new sound card to arrive tomorrow if that doesnt work, then it's mobo sound time. which my mobo has a decent sound.
semp
-
well in my case so far nothing beats the sound from my mobo. waiting for my new sound card to arrive tomorrow if that doesnt work, then it's mobo sound time. which my mobo has a decent sound.
semp
It still doesn't change the fact that on-board sound will always be sub-par compared to a dedicated sound card. Just because you don't see any difference doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
ack-ack
-
It still doesn't change the fact that on-board sound will always be sub-par compared to a dedicated sound card. Just because you don't see any difference doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
ack-ack
actually i was making a reference that I havent been able to find a true 7.1 sound card, well i have but the 2 that I know of, i cant afford. which in my case means my mobo is better than nothing.
the new card will arrive tomorrow. hopefully it will work or it's back to my mob has the best 7.1 surround sound that I know of :).
semp
-
It still doesn't change the fact that on-board sound will always be sub-par compared to a dedicated sound card. Just because you don't see any difference doesn't mean one doesn't exist.
ack-ack
That's not true, nothing stops a mobo maker from implementing a similar sound circuitry that you would have on a dedicated card.
Here's the new Gigabyte Z97X-Gaming G1 for a mere $379 (it would be likely $100 cheaper without all that gold).
- Onboard Creative Sound Core3D™ quad-core audio processor
- AMP-UP Audio technology with exclusive Upgradable OP-AMP
- Audio Noise Guard with LED path lighting
- Dual DAC-UP USB ports
- Gold plated display and audio ports
- High end Nichicon audio capacitors
So no, you don't necessarily need a separate sound card.
-
That's not true, nothing stops a mobo maker from implementing a similar sound circuitry that you would have on a dedicated card.
So no, you don't necessarily need a separate sound card.
well my mobo cost me 180 plus 50 bucks for the sound card (which I hope it works). a lot less than 379 for that mobo you posted. actually I could have gotten my mobo, the same sound card i have now and the kave headset for the same price as that mobo.
main thing is how much you are willing to spend. you pay for it one way or another.
semp
-
well my mobo cost me 180 plus 50 bucks for the sound card (which I hope it works). a lot less than 379 for that mobo you posted. actually I could have gotten my mobo, the same sound card i have now and the kave headset for the same price as that mobo.
main thing is how much you are willing to spend. you pay for it one way or another.
semp
This was just one example, I just pointed out that both Chalenge and Ack-Ack didn't really know what they were posting about. There are high quality built in sound implementations available from many manufacturers. They are not all sub-par high latency crapware as the previous posters were suggesting. Actually Gigabyte, Asus etc. have invested in improving onboard audio quality considerably in many models. It goes without saying that if you buy the cheapest motherboard you can find it's going to have the cheapest components also.
-
Wrong again, Ripley. If you remember correctly I was the one that pointed out the existence of this approach to onboard sound. I did not adopt it because it is still less efficient than a separate sound card. Worse, the functionality of the chip is reduced, and noise is increased. It is better than other onboard solutions, but no where near ideal.
Outside of that this particular board was less than ideal for other reasons, but might suit your needs just fine.
-
That's not true, nothing stops a mobo maker from implementing a similar sound circuitry that you would have on a dedicated card.
<snip>
That is not true either. Everything on a sound card can operate completely asynchronously to the main CPU and not interrupt anything on the motherboard, until it is completed processing and needs to notify the CPU it is done.
If the sound chip in on the motherboard, it interrupts and or suspends the CPU(all cores) each time it needs to access memory.
As a matter of fact, only one device on the memory or I/O buses, of the motherboard, can be active at a time. Add in cards, with their own CPU, RAM, and so on, can run in parallel with everything else in the system.
-
This was just one example, I just pointed out that both Chalenge and Ack-Ack didn't really know what they were posting about.
You should take your own advice. I have a Gigabyte GA-Z87-U4DH board and the onboard sucks. The 5.1 Creative Blaster Z card is superior in sound quality to the onboard 7.1 and it isn't even close.
-
That is not true either. Everything on a sound card can operate completely asynchronously to the main CPU and not interrupt anything on the motherboard, until it is completed processing and needs to notify the CPU it is done.
If the sound chip in on the motherboard, it interrupts and or suspends the CPU(all cores) each time it needs to access memory.
As a matter of fact, only one device on the memory or I/O buses, of the motherboard, can be active at a time. Add in cards, with their own CPU, RAM, and so on, can run in parallel with everything else in the system.
If what you say would be true there would be absolutely no point to make a 4 core audio chip embedded. Nothing stops the motherboard maker from utilizing a PCI-E line in the embedded solution just as it would be an addon card. In fact a reviewer noticed an additional PCI-E bridge chip that he found now obvious reason for, which would indicate my theory might be correct.
-
You should take your own advice. I have a Gigabyte GA-Z87-U4DH board and the onboard sucks. The 5.1 Creative Blaster Z card is superior in sound quality to the onboard 7.1 and it isn't even close.
Stop embarrassing yourself please. Your motherboard has a regular el-cheapo Realtek chip it can't be compared to the example.
-
Wrong again, Ripley. If you remember correctly I was the one that pointed out the existence of this approach to onboard sound. I did not adopt it because it is still less efficient than a separate sound card. Worse, the functionality of the chip is reduced, and noise is increased. It is better than other onboard solutions, but no where near ideal.
Outside of that this particular board was less than ideal for other reasons, but might suit your needs just fine.
The Gigabyte example got excellent results in both sound quality and signal to noise tests even when using the default chips on the upgradeable slots. That kinda defeats your theory there.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Gigabyte/Z97X-GAMING_G1_WIFI-BK/
By the way, what setup do you use for your audio? Do you happen to have a high-end audio setup with electrostatic panel speakers like I do? The whole reproduction chain must be up to the task, the source is only a fraction of the whole system.
-
Different reviewers give good reviews for different reasons unrelated to the actual performance. It doesn't matter what your speakers are, either, especially if you do the comparison on the same system. You can use any speaker and listen to music and the audio will be fine on either the onboard chip, or a sound card. I was very interested in the concept of changing out an op-amp and changing the dynamic of the board's audio. However, in practice it is not as capable as the same concept on a separate audio card (the Xonar in particular has a more effective approach with eight upgradable op-amps). In particular, when it comes to noise the ZxR is far superior with a mere 124dB SNR. To be fair, the onboard SNR matches the Z, and Zx.
However, when you take a complex video game like AH and compare it on both devices the sound card will be superior (given that the onboard chip and card both use the Core 3D chip). The reason is simple as outlined by Skuzzy. To prove it all you have to do is test it, as I have. So, you can stop calling it 'theory.'
-
Stop embarrassing yourself please. Your motherboard has a regular el-cheapo Realtek chip it can't be compared to the example.
You're embarrassed yourself for more than 6 years in the section. Your example is inferior to a standalone card, end of discussion.
-
well i got my new sound card. thanks challenge for the list of sound cards. I am happy, the sound card is not as good as my sb z but it's way better than my mobo's 7.1, and my mobo's sound is good.
once my foot heals and I start working ot, then I'll get one of the top rated but for now. this will do. I have to turn the volume way down as the headset is loud. also it blocks all "outside" noise pretty good, to the point I wear them when I need to concentrate on some paperwork.
thanks to all for your input.
semp
-
If what you say would be true there would be absolutely no point to make a 4 core audio chip embedded. Nothing stops the motherboard maker from utilizing a PCI-E line in the embedded solution just as it would be an addon card. In fact a reviewer noticed an additional PCI-E bridge chip that he found now obvious reason for, which would indicate my theory might be correct.
There is no way for multiple devices to access memory at a time (i.e. simultaneously). There is only one physical path to memory in desktops (and other lower forms of computers). There is no physical way multiple devices can access ANY given bus, at the same time (i.e. simultaneously) as each bus has one physical path. Have you ever looked at the actual design of a computer? Bridge chips share a common path to and from the CPU. Only one bridge chip and be accessed by any given CPU. This mitigates running anything simultaneously.
Now, there are server motherboards and chipsets which allow for two physical paths to memory which allow two cores to access different regions of memory, at the same time. None of this technology exists for a desktop.
However, I/O devices all have to share a path and access is only allowed one at a time. For any device to run completely parallel to the CPU, it has to have its own RAM, CPU, and any other hardware required to support the type of I/O.
Those are facts. Not opinion, not theory.
-
How are the 7.1 headphones?.
-
How are the 7.1 headphones?.
awesome. not that the kave are crap either. but I like the tianman better even though their twice the money. only problem is finding a sound card that has true 7.1. I bought and returned 3 that said were 7.1 but were made for speaker systems rather than 7.1 headsets.
semp
-
There is no way for multiple devices to access memory at a time (i.e. simultaneously). There is only one physical path to memory in desktops (and other lower forms of computers). There is no physical way multiple devices can access ANY given bus, at the same time (i.e. simultaneously) as each bus has one physical path. Have you ever looked at the actual design of a computer? Bridge chips share a common path to and from the CPU. Only one bridge chip and be accessed by any given CPU. This mitigates running anything simultaneously.
Now, there are server motherboards and chipsets which allow for two physical paths to memory which allow two cores to access different regions of memory, at the same time. None of this technology exists for a desktop.
However, I/O devices all have to share a path and access is only allowed one at a time. For any device to run completely parallel to the CPU, it has to have its own RAM, CPU, and any other hardware required to support the type of I/O.
Those are facts. Not opinion, not theory.
Yes and if a built in sound implementation has a 4-core Creative processor, don't you think it will probably have its own ram etc. also? The motherboard makers are not stupid, they know their limitations and requirements far better than any of us do (you included) as they design their own architectures. With any logic one would assume that their goal was to enable offloading of audio processing using the built in solution. Kinda like gluing a Creative sound card to the PCB.
So technically you agree that there is nothing stopping Gigabyte from implementing an onboard audio that works just as well as a dedicated sound card. That is all I need.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
Wrong. You keep championing that MB sound is equal and it is not. Ripley, you should again follow your own advice. I am not stating opinion, however your baseless "arguing for the sake of arguing" is opinion.
-
See Rule #4
-
Ripley, trying to reinvent what is actually on that board with your imagination is not helping your case. They can wire whatever they want to the MB and it won't change a thing.
And, again, you are wrong about speakers. Speakers do not affect the workings of the sound chip.
I have said it before and I will say it again; you just argue for arguments sake. You lost this argument. End of thread.
-
See Rule #4
Technically, there is not a single sound chip design which incorporates a CPU/processor, RAM (outside of streaming buffers), and DSP. The reason it will not be done is due to cost. The reason onboard solutions are popular is they are cheaper.
The best onboard sound chips still rely on the main CPU to do a lot of the work, and they also rely on system RAM for storage.
Can it be done? It could be, but it never will be. If it was going to be done, it would have already been done. It is simply cost prohibitive to do so.
Skuzzy agrees with me ....
Do not put words in my mouth. I was under the assumption we were talking about currently existing technologies, not pie-in-the-sky stuff.
I was not aware Gigabyte had discrete chip design capabilities either. Everything I have seen from them has been using off the shelf parts. I could be wrong here, as I have not contacted Gigabyte about it.
If you want a pie-in-the-sky discussion, then we can go down all manner of rabbit holes. For instance, there is nothing preventing Intel from building a sound device directly into the CPU. Although it makes little send to do so due to bus contention issues with the external devices.
Then again, the SATA controller could host a sound device, or maybe go back to an external memory controller with a sound device added in. The possibilities are limitless, as long as cost is not issue.
-
See Rule #4
Ripley, you got to look how windows audio stack works in order to understand it.
As for Creative cards and hardware offloading, they used to have extensions to DirectSound3D called EAX and since the changes to windows audio stack, they have ALchemy which intercepts calls to DirectSound3D and translate them to OpenAL which are then processed on card hardware (as opposed to CPU processing).
Sound quality, depends on oranges and apples, but when it comes to music reproduction, there's no comparison really. You just have to look at analog part, outputs, DACs, etc and you'll see huge difference between onboard and discrete soundcard.
EMI shielding onboard? Only shield is tiny cover on the chip and nothing else. Compare that to shielding on Xonar XST or Creative ZXR (I own both).
I wouldn't consider myself an audiophile, but I like quality sound. For environmental (neighbors) and $$ reasons I do not own $200,000 speakers, but I do have nice collection of decent headphones (AKG 812, SH HD650, AT M50x and AD700). When I use PC to listen to music I mostly use external DAC and AMP. If I compare those to XST or ZXR, they are damned close, especially if I plug more efficient headphones like M50x directly into line-out instead of amplified headphone output.
I doubt any onboard audio solution will come (now or in near future) anywhere close to quality of above mentioned discrete soundcards.
-
Do not put words in my mouth. I was under the assumption we were talking about currently existing technologies, not pie-in-the-sky stuff.
I don't know what pie-in-the-sky you're talking about. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/How-On-Board-Audio-Works/28/2
Technically speaking there are two ways of integrating audio on the motherboard. The most common one is using the system CPU to process audio, under a technique called HSP (Host Signal Processing), with the south bridge chip from the chipset providing the necessary interfacing circuit with the external world. The second way which nowadays is only seen on few very high-end motherboards is using a dedicated controller to control and process the audio and thus not using the system CPU for these tasks.
If it's pie in the sky, what on earth are these guys talking about?
-
Ripley, you got to look how windows audio stack works in order to understand it.
As for Creative cards and hardware offloading, they used to have extensions to DirectSound3D called EAX and since the changes to windows audio stack, they have ALchemy which intercepts calls to DirectSound3D and translate them to OpenAL which are then processed on card hardware (as opposed to CPU processing).
Sound quality, depends on oranges and apples, but when it comes to music reproduction, there's no comparison really. You just have to look at analog part, outputs, DACs, etc and you'll see huge difference between onboard and discrete soundcard.
EMI shielding onboard? Only shield is tiny cover on the chip and nothing else. Compare that to shielding on Xonar XST or Creative ZXR (I own both).
I wouldn't consider myself an audiophile, but I like quality sound. For environmental (neighbors) and $$ reasons I do not own $200,000 speakers, but I do have nice collection of decent headphones (AKG 812, SH HD650, AT M50x and AD700). When I use PC to listen to music I mostly use external DAC and AMP. If I compare those to XST or ZXR, they are damned close, especially if I plug more efficient headphones like M50x directly into line-out instead of amplified headphone output.
I doubt any onboard audio solution will come (now or in near future) anywhere close to quality of above mentioned discrete soundcards.
The onboard solution uses the same creative chip and processes sound using the same methods, yet you think it's not as good. Aces High doesn't have OpenAL support as far as I know (and it doesn't require the installation of OpenAL driver) so your sound cards work in software mode and taxes the CPU despite its architecture.
-
Ripley, trying to reinvent what is actually on that board with your imagination is not helping your case. They can wire whatever they want to the MB and it won't change a thing.
And, again, you are wrong about speakers. Speakers do not affect the workings of the sound chip.
I have said it before and I will say it again; you just argue for arguments sake. You lost this argument. End of thread.
LOL only a complete beginner thinks speakers are not important in hearing small differences in the audio chain. With my speakers I can hear things you can not even imagine possible, from recordings and equipment. I never claimed they alter the function of any chip, they enable you to hear differences more accurately if any exist. It's hilarious to see people worry about thousands of a percentile differences in source when they have a thousand fold worse problems at the end of the chain.
Nobody has yet proven my argument wrong. If the chip measures the same, gets excellent reviews and uses even the same hardware and drivers as a dedicated card, how will it be worse?
-
I don't know what pie-in-the-sky you're talking about. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/How-On-Board-Audio-Works/28/2
If it's pie in the sky, what on earth are these guys talking about?
That sound chip, in your link, uses system RAM for its work. It does not run its driver code from its own RAM. Each time it has to execute an instruction it will cause all the CPU cores to suspend.
The chip you described was taking a card and making a chip out of it (dedicated RAM, CPU,....). It does not exist.
The onboard solution uses the same creative chip and processes sound using the same methods, yet you think it's not as good. Aces High doesn't have OpenAL support as far as I know (and it doesn't require the installation of OpenAL driver) so your sound cards work in software mode and taxes the CPU despite its architecture.
MIcrosoft took the DirectSound functions and wrapped them around the OpenAL code and functions (they did this in Vista and have carried it forward). DirectSound, as a standlone effort, does not exist anymore. Any application using DirectSound is transparently routed through OpenAL, by the operating system.
-
Ripley, you got to look how windows audio stack works in order to understand it.
As for Creative cards and hardware offloading, they used to have extensions to DirectSound3D called EAX and since the changes to windows audio stack, they have ALchemy which intercepts calls to DirectSound3D and translate them to OpenAL which are then processed on card hardware (as opposed to CPU processing).
Sound quality, depends on oranges and apples, but when it comes to music reproduction, there's no comparison really. You just have to look at analog part, outputs, DACs, etc and you'll see huge difference between onboard and discrete soundcard.
EMI shielding onboard? Only shield is tiny cover on the chip and nothing else. Compare that to shielding on Xonar XST or Creative ZXR (I own both).
I wouldn't consider myself an audiophile, but I like quality sound. For environmental (neighbors) and $$ reasons I do not own $200,000 speakers, but I do have nice collection of decent headphones (AKG 812, SH HD650, AT M50x and AD700). When I use PC to listen to music I mostly use external DAC and AMP. If I compare those to XST or ZXR, they are damned close, especially if I plug more efficient headphones like M50x directly into line-out instead of amplified headphone output.
I doubt any onboard audio solution will come (now or in near future) anywhere close to quality of above mentioned discrete soundcards.
In this case you would have to compare a discrete card using Creatives SoundCore3D chip to a motherboard implementation of the same chip (yes they exist). If you go along with what the people here are saying, the motherboard implementation should be horrible in comparison. Even though it has identical audio measurements, uses the same chip, is built using the same technique and even has its own filtered power supply isolating it from the rest of the board.
That my friend, does not compute.
-
That sound chip, in your link, uses system RAM for its work. It does not run its driver code from its own RAM. Each time it has to execute an instruction it will cause all the CPU cores to suspend.
The chip you described was taking a card and making a chip out of it (dedicated RAM, CPU,....). It does not exist.
MIcrosoft took the DirectSound functions and wrapped them around the OpenAL code and functions (they did this in Vista and have carried it forward). DirectSound, as a standlone effort, does not exist anymore. Any application using DirectSound is transparently routed through OpenAL by the operating system.
Even without software support and driver? The article mentioned OpenAL being very limited in function also.
-
Even without software support and driver? The article mentioned OpenAL being very limited in function also.
OpenAL is the underlying sound system in Windows and has been since Vista. All Windows sound functions use it.
I do not know what you mean by "even without software support" as every sound card driver uses the Windows API for driver support which routes through OpenAL. In Windows, OpenAL does not have to do much but be the traffic manager between the hardware and the operating system.
I have no idea what context you are speaking from when you say, OpenAL is very limited. It does what it is supposed to do. Beyond that, you need to clarify the comment.
-
OpenAL is the underlying sound system in Windows and has been since Vista. All Windows sound functions use it.
I do not know what you mean by "even without software support" as every sound card driver uses the Windows API for driver support which routes through OpenAL. In Windows, OpenAL does not have to do much but be the traffic manager between the hardware and the operating system.
I have no idea what context you are speaking from when you say, OpenAL is very limited. It does what it is supposed to do. Beyond that, you need to clarify the comment.
According to Wikipedia OpenAL is an API which is not native to Windows in any way. You need Creative Alchemy or similar code to utilize it.
Windows Vista features a completely re-written audio stack based on the Universal Audio Architecture. Because of the architectural changes in the redesigned audio stack, a direct path from DirectSound to the audio drivers does not exist.[7] DirectSound, DirectMusic and other APIs such as MME are emulated as WASAPI Session instances. DirectSound runs in emulation mode on the Microsoft software mixer. The emulator does not have hardware abstraction, so there is no hardware DirectSound acceleration, meaning hardware and software relying on DirectSound acceleration may have degraded performance. It's likely a supposed performance hit might not be noticeable, depending on the application and actual system hardware. In the case of hardware 3D audio effects played using DirectSound3D, they will not be playable; this also breaks compatibility with EAX extensions.[8]
Third-party APIs such as ASIO and OpenAL are not affected by these architectural changes in Windows Vista, as they use IOCtl to interface directly with the audio driver . A solution for applications that wish to take advantage of hardware accelerated high-quality 3D positional audio is to use OpenAL. However, this only works if the manufacturer provides an OpenAL driver for their hardware.[9]
As of 2007, a solution to re-enable hardware acceleration of DirectSound3D and Audio Effects, such as EAX, called Creative ALchemy was launched.[10] Creative ALchemy intercepts calls to DirectSound3D and translates them into OpenAL calls to be processed by supported hardware such as Sound Blaster X-Fi and Sound Blaster Audigy. For software-based Creative audio solutions, ALchemy utilizes its built-in 3D audio engine without using OpenAL at all.
Realtek, a manufacturer of integrated HD audio codecs, has a product similar to ALchemy called 3D SoundBack. C-Media, a manufacturer of PC sound card chipsets, also has a solution called Xear3D EX, although it works instead by intercepting DirectSound3D calls transparently in the background without any user intervention.
-
The onboard solution uses the same creative chip and processes sound using the same methods, yet you think it's not as good. Aces High doesn't have OpenAL support as far as I know (and it doesn't require the installation of OpenAL driver) so your sound cards work in software mode and taxes the CPU despite its architecture.
It's 2014. If you haven't figured out yet, in the age of high performance multi-core CPUs, nobody is getting discrete soundcard to increase performance of processing because differences are negligible.
Beside that, you don't know what ALchemy does. Game doesn't need to support OpenAL, those who do have direct access to soundcard hardware, those who do not need to use ALchemy wraper. True, ALchemy needs to support the game, but that is still other way around than what you think it is.
Stop googling without actually reading and understanding.
It's really all about sound quality and onboard DACs, ADCs and AMPs are too constrained to achieve the same quality as those on discrete soundcards do. That's the fact.
-
It's 2014. If you haven't figured out yet, in the age of high performance multi-core CPUs, nobody is getting discrete soundcard to increase performance of processing because differences are negligible.
Beside that, you don't know what ALchemy does. Game doesn't need to support OpenAL, those who do have direct access to soundcard hardware, those who do not need to use ALchemy wraper. True, ALchemy needs to support the game, but that is still other way around than what you think it is.
Stop googling without actually reading and understanding.
It's really all about sound quality and onboard DACs, ADCs and AMPs are too constrained to achieve the same quality as those on discrete soundcards do. That's the fact.
Even when the op amps, dacs and adcs used are the same as in the discrete card such as is the case in the Gigabyte sample. This is not based on facts anymore at this point.
Also according to http://support.creative.com/kb/showarticle.aspx?sid=28967 Aces High is not on the list of OpenAL supported games. This in my understanding indicates that AH runs in software mode audio wise unless a C-media driver is used that is totally transparent.
-
According to Wikipedia OpenAL is an API which is not native to Windows in any way. You need Creative Alchemy or similar code to utilize it.
I can see where what I said would be confusing. I did not go into detail as I do not have the bandwidth, at the moment, to do so.
Even when the op amps, dacs and adcs used are the same as in the discrete card such as is the case in the Gigabyte sample. This is not based on facts anymore at this point.
Actually, it is not just the components in a digital sound system, it is the layout (number of board layers, ground planes...) and shielding as well. I am not saying there is no difference in the sound. I do not have data to indicate one way or the other.
My contention is, and has been, a sound card can afford higher efficiencies due to being able to run at full speed in parallel to the system CPU and allowing the system CPU to be free from interruption.
-
In this case you would have to compare a discrete card using Creatives SoundCore3D chip to a motherboard implementation of the same chip (yes they exist).
Do you actually know what for SoundCore3D is used onboard or on card like Z series? Thought so.
For music reproduction you don't nor you should use any processing SoundCore3D does, like SBX or CV.
-
Do you actually know what for SoundCore3D is used onboard or on card like Z series? Thought so.
For music reproduction you don't nor you should use any processing SoundCore3D does, like SBX or CV.
Soundcore3D is a DSP processor, did you think so?
So what about the DACS ADCS and op-amps that are similar in the gigabyte implementation? Forgot those already? The DAC and the op-amp pretty much handle most of the 2 channel audio.
-
Even when the op amps, dacs and adcs used are the same as in the discrete card such as is the case in the Gigabyte sample.
They aren't. Far from it.
This is not based on facts anymore at this point.
It very much is, and very easy to compare.
-
They aren't. Far from it.
It very much is, and very easy to compare.
Ok, compare. What exactly stops Gigabyte from doing an onboard solution that is comparative or higher in component quality? The cost is the only limiting factor and this is a fact.
-
Soundcore3D is a DSP processor, did you think so?
Why would you want to do anything to your high quality audio source other than convert it to analog signal?
-
Ok, compare. What exactly stops Gigabyte from doing an onboard solution that is comparative or higher in component quality? The cost is the only limiting factor and this is a fact.
Nothing prevents them, it's just so they're not doing it. The onboard solution you linked in second page is far cry from quality of high-end discrete cards. The only common thing they have is DSP chip. For everything else, there's huge gap.
-
Why would you want to do anything to your high quality audio source other than convert it to analog signal?
We're talking about computer audio reproduction and 3D positional sound, not just 2 chan. The Gigabyte board uses TI Burr Brown OPA2134 op-amps. Are they bad in your opinion?
Don't change subjects now. is it or is it not possible for Gigabyte to implement similar or better quality components in the motherboard audio? Remember that the stance of the opposition is that it CANT be done. It's not only if it has been done or not.
-
Nothing prevents them, it's just so they're not doing it. The onboard solution you linked in second page is far cry from quality of high-end discrete cards. The only common thing they have is DSP chip. For everything else, there's huge gap.
Which DAC the Gigabyte board uses? I couldn't find any references online. You seem to know.
Edit: found it. They're integrated in the chip so it's 100% identical to the discrete card. :lol
In addition to integrated DAC and ADC components, the Core3D has its own headphone amplifier, a digital microphone interface, and S/PDIF connectivity.
-
We're talking about computer audio reproduction and 3D positional sound, not just 2 chan. The Gigabyte board uses TI Burr Brown OPA2134 op-amps. Are they bad in your opinion?
Don't change subjects now. is it or is it not possible for Gigabyte to implement similar or better quality components in the motherboard audio? Remember that the stance of the opposition is that it CANT be done. It's not only if it has been done or not.
So we are talking pie-in-the-sky. Anyone can do anything, given enough time and money and effort, but no one is going to do it, so what is the point? Just asking.
-
So we are talking pie-in-the-sky. Anyone can do anything, given enough time and money and effort, but no one is going to do it, so what is the point? Just asking.
The point is that as I just discovered, the Creative chip is an all-in-one solution with DSP, DAC and ADC and the board uses a short signal path and a known good Burr-Brown op-amp, high quality Japanese Nichicon audio capacitors in an isolated section on the board and a discrete filtered power supply.
In addition to this, Aces High among many other games is not on the supported Alchemy games list, indicating that it probably runs in software, not hardware accelerated mode.
So technically, what makes it so bad? Prejudice.
Call me crazy but to me that looks like as far as technology and components go, the board does not get ashamed at all by a discrete Creative card (especially one that uses also a Core3D chip).
-
I do not believe I ever said it was bad.
It is just not as efficient as an add on card and I have already explained why.
-
We're talking about computer audio reproduction and 3D positional sound, not just 2 chan. The Gigabyte board uses TI Burr Brown OPA2134 op-amps. Are they bad in your opinion?
They're not bad but they're not nearly as good as 2 x LME 49710NA in ZXR. THD 0.00008% vs 0.00003%, Open Loop Gain 120dB vs 140dB, for example...
Don't change subjects now. is it or is it not possible for Gigabyte to implement similar or better quality components in the motherboard audio? Remember that the stance of the opposition is that it CANT be done. It's not only if it has been done or not.
At the moment due to pysical constraints, you can't do it, not on the same form factor MB.
-
I do not believe I ever said it was bad.
It is just not as efficient as an add on card and I have already explained why.
Yes I understand that in XP era. In post Vista era you get no hardware acceleration unless your hardware, drivers and software are all supported for OpenAL. I'm fairly sure most of users run in software mode most of the time.
In Windows 8 steps have been taken to enable audio hardware acceleration again.
-
They're not bad but they're not nearly as good as 2 x LME 49710NA in ZXR. THD 0.00008% vs 0.00003%, Open Loop Gain 120dB vs 140dB, for example...
At the moment due to pysical constraints, you can't do it, not on the same form factor MB.
You should have read the follow-up. The Core3D is not only the DSP it contains the DAC and ADC built in. That makes it technically more or less identical to a Creative standalone card using the same chip.
Of course it's possible that Creative chose to use crappy components in their X-FI replacement card. Not very likely though.
-
The point is that as I just discovered, the Creative chip is an all-in-one solution with DSP, DAC and ADC and the board uses a short signal path and a known good Burr-Brown op-amp, high quality Japanese Nichicon audio capacitors in an isolated section on the board and a discrete filtered power supply.
Stop talking nonsense. Maybe as used on Gigabyte MB.
ZXR has PCM 1798 and PCM 1794 DACs. On ZXR, SoundCore3D is used only for SBX, CV and Scout mode processing. There's also huge difference in capacitors. ZXR uses Nichicon "Fine Gold" capacitors.
-
Yes I understand that in XP era. In post Vista era you get no hardware acceleration unless your hardware, drivers and software are all supported for OpenAL. I'm fairly sure most of users run in software mode most of the time.
It does not matter as the method would be the same whether it is an onboard chip or an add on card. The increase in efficiencies still apply to the add-on card.
You do understand "hardware acceleration" was a misnomer in Windows XP? If the sound device was on the motherboard, it simply adjusted the priority the driver ran at.
If you are using an ASIO driver, all bets are off as that goes directly to the hardware, by-passing most of Windows. You will see a huge difference in latencies between onboard and add-in card there. My home system has a 2ms latency on my add-in card. 47ms through the onboard chip.
-
You should have read the follow-up.
You should read the specs...
-
It does not matter as the method would be the same whether it is an onboard chip or an add on card. The increase in efficiencies still apply to the add-on card.
You do understand "hardware acceleration" was a misnomer in Windows XP? If the sound device was on the motherboard, it simply adjusted the priority the driver ran at.
Misnomer in which way? In Windows XP the drivers could directly utilize the hardware components in the sound card, offloading the tasks from the CPU. Since Windows Vista, the audio has been forced to run in emulation mode with no direct access to hardware. This was done because of the recording industrys demands on Digital Rights Management. To put it short, the recording industry chose to cripple your sound cards in Vista and forward to disable the ability to rip High definition audio.
Most users are not using ASIO drivers and the ASIO drivers do not have an interface to Directsound. ASIO is used primarily by pro audio software and hardware.
-
It was a misnomer due to it not really using "hardware" acceleration for onboard chips.
I know all about the DRM, UAA and other nonsense in Vista which crippled the entire Windows sound system. Windows 7 fixed a lot of it. At least as got back ASIO support in Windows 7, and later.
Again, this does not have anything to do with whether or not an add-in card is more efficient than an onboard chip.
-
It was a misnomer due to it not really using "hardware" acceleration for onboard chips.
I know all about the DRM, UAA and other nonsense in Vista which crippled the entire Windows sound system. Windows 7 fixed a lot of it. At least as got back ASIO support in Windows 7, and later.
Yes but I want to make things clear: ASIO support does _not_ fix emulation mode with DirectSound games. Only Alchemy and similar techniques enable the offloading. It would be interesting to know if Aces High supports Alchemy or not, at least the Creative documentation does not imply that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but a sound card that runs in software mode and there for taxes the CPU, is no more efficient or worse than a regular onboard Realtek chip for example. Things change totally if hardware acceleration is supported and the card can offload audio processing from the CPU.
-
Yes but I want to make things clear: ASIO support does _not_ fix emulation mode with DirectSound games. Only Alchemy and similar techniques enable the offloading. It would be interesting to know if Aces High supports Alchemy or not, at least the Creative documentation does not imply that.
No, we do not support Alchemy, as that is a short term solution and does nothing for Aces High. We do true positional sounds, the sounds do not need any further processing, other than simple D to A.
-
Stop talking nonsense. Maybe as used on Gigabyte MB.
ZXR has PCM 1798 and PCM 1794 DACs. On ZXR, SoundCore3D is used only for SBX, CV and Scout mode processing. There's also huge difference in capacitors. ZXR uses Nichicon "Fine Gold" capacitors.
Yes as used on the Gigabyte sample (among others). The main issue was not if the Gigabyte implementation was perfect in every imaginable way. It was a counter argument against 'onboard audio sucks'. In reality the more expensive motherboards have an onboard audio solution that is well comparable to most budget discrete sound cards (to the least, I doubt even they use Nichicon caps and Burr-Brown amps), especially after the fact that many games (or even Creatives own products) do not support hardware audio offloading post Vista.
-
No, we do not support Alchemy, as that is a short term solution and does nothing for Aces High. We do true positional sounds, the sounds do not need any further processing, other than simple D to A.
Thank you, this was a straight and honest answer and I appreciate that.
-
You should read the specs...
Ok lets speak about specs.
What is the THD on the amplifier you use at this time? You do realize that even if your source had 0% THD and your amp introduces 0.005% THD at 1 watts, you end up with 0.005% THD?
So. Your source has 0.000005% THD. My source has 0.000008% THD. After it's played through a hi-fi amp it has 0.00505% and 0.00508% THD, respectively. After you play it through speakers at 10 watts output your amp puts out already 0.01 % THD probably. Then your speakers add another 0.1% or more.
So if I play music using my high-end amplifier and high-end electrostatic speakers that do not add the 0.01% + 0.1% THD but maybe tenth or less of that, I end up with much higher accuracy even when using a totally 'crappy' source. This is because I have addressed the biggest source of distortion in the audio chain.
Advantages of electrostatic loudspeakers include levels of distortion one to two orders of magnitude lower than conventional cone drivers in a box, the extremely light weight of the diaphragm which is driven across its whole surface, and exemplary frequency response (both in amplitude and phase) because the principle of generating force and pressure is almost free from resonances unlike the more common electrodynamic driver. Musical transparency can be better than in electrodynamic speakers because the radiating surface has much less mass than most other drivers and is therefore far less capable of storing energy to be released later. For example, typical dynamic speaker drivers can have moving masses of tens or hundreds of grams whereas an electrostatic membrane only weighs a few milligrams, several times less than the very lightest of electrodynamic tweeters. The concomitant air load, often insignificant in dynamic speakers, is usually tens of grams because of the large coupling surface, this contributing to damping of resonance buildup by the air itself to a significant, though not complete, degree. Electrostatics can also be executed as full-range designs, lacking the usual crossover filters and enclosures that could color or distort the sound.
-
I do not care for the direction this thread is going, but I have to say. THD is a minor component in what determines the quality of sound reproduction.
-
So you can tell the difference using exspensive audio equipment?
I saw some speakers with valves in a shop :)
What sort of music requires such equipment :)
I have some £170 seinheiser momentum headphones, my mrs bought them for me, i only found out the price other day and nearly fell over :rofl
-
I do not care for the direction this thread is going, but I have to say. THD is a minor component in what determines the quality of sound reproduction.
THD, IMD, TIM, phase, amplitude... there are many clear and measureable components. In my understanding there must be still many quantities in audio that we do not yet know how to measure. For example the TIM distortion was all but unknown before a Finnish researcher Tapio M. Köykkä wrote a study about it. His amplifiers with zero negative feedback circuits are still legendary in the audio world.
All this is moot however as long as we talk on the level of technological specifications. The subjective quality of different implementations is known to vary in forms unexplainable by simple measurements.
-
So you can tell the difference using exspensive audio equipment?
I saw some speakers with valves in a shop :)
What sort of music requires such equipment :)
I have some £170 seinheiser momentum headphones, my mrs bought them for me, i only found out the price other day and nearly fell over :rofl
Speakers with valves? That's pretty funky, tell me more :)
-
It was in a specialist audio shop, they did not look like speakers but apparently they were :)
BOSE speakers are very good i believe, i guy i knew had some they were very small as well :)
I suppose its like wine if you drink ordinary stuff you dont know any better and when you drink decent stuff you realise the difference.
I was informed that chip based amplifiers were a comprimise and valves were essentially supperior.
Valves look better as well :)
-
It was in a specialist audio shop, they did not look like speakers but apparently they were :)
BOSE speakers are very good i believe, i guy i knew had some they were very small as well :)
I suppose its like wine if you drink ordinary stuff you dont know any better and when you drink decent stuff you realise the difference.
I was informed that chip based amplifiers were a comprimise and valves were essentially supperior.
Valves look better as well :)
Ah that's what I thought you were talking about valve amps in reality. Many high-end audio hobbyists like *tube* i.e. valve amplifiers as opposed to transistor amplifiers (the regular amps). The electron tubes of the old have got a new life in hi-fi and high-end gear. Tube amps give a buttery smooth sound partly because they introduce bucket loads of harmonic distortion to the sound. Their disadvantage is low efficiency and, well, the distortion. Most commonly tube amps require very efficient speakers because they can only output 1 to 10 watts. Some very expensive models can do even 100 watts enabling them to drive regular hi-fi speakers.
There is a special cult of hifi enthusiasts who use super efficient horn speakers or full range cone drivers connected to tube amps. Some very extreme even direct-connect tube amps to electrostatic speakers - but that's extreme because your speaker cables will then contain leathal audio voltages and current. A commercial no-go there :)
Edit: Direct connect means bypassing the audio transfomer that otherwise is used to transform the tube voltages/impedance for regular speakers. Electrostatic speakers operate using voltages up to 4000 volts when regular speakers typically burn out at 140 volts.
-
Ok lets speak about specs.
What is the THD on the amplifier you use at this time? You do realize that even if your source had 0% THD and your amp introduces 0.005% THD at 1 watts, you end up with 0.005% THD?
So. Your source has 0.000005% THD. My source has 0.000008% THD. After it's played through a hi-fi amp it has 0.00505% and 0.00508% THD, respectively. After you play it through speakers at 10 watts output your amp puts out already 0.01 % THD probably. Then your speakers add another 0.1% or more.
So if I play music using my high-end amplifier and high-end electrostatic speakers that do not add the 0.01% + 0.1% THD but maybe tenth or less of that, I end up with much higher accuracy even when using a totally 'crappy' source. This is because I have addressed the biggest source of distortion in the audio chain.
Grasping for straws...
Do you know why I listed THD? Because you mentioned it one of your "See Rule #4" posts as some important spec. But forget it. You can get all the other specs directly from TI (including all the charts) or other manufactures who are using them in their audio product and yes, there is quite a difference between these two.
From horses mouth (TI)
The OPA134 series (includes OPA2134) are ultra-low distortion, low noise operational amplifiers fully specified for audio applications.
vs
The LME49710 is part of the ultra-low distortion, low noise, high-slew-rate operational amplifier series optimized and fully specified for high-performance, high-fidelity applications.
What else you want to compare between Gigabyte onboard and ZXR?
-
Grasping for straws...
Do you know why I listed THD? Because you mentioned it one of your "See Rule #4" posts as some important spec. But forget it. You can get all the other specs directly from TI (including all the charts) or other manufactures who are using them in their audio product and yes, there is quite a difference between these two.
From horses mouth (TI)
The OPA134 series (includes OPA2134) are ultra-low distortion, low noise operational amplifiers fully specified for audio applications.
vs
The LME49710 is part of the ultra-low distortion, low noise, high-slew-rate operational amplifier series optimized and fully specified for high-performance, high-fidelity applications.
What else you want to compare between Gigabyte onboard and ZXR?
You're the one gasping for straws here. For reasons I stated earlyer these minor details are not the defining factor by any imaginable stretch. Not only that, Gigabyte left the opamp open socket so you can just pull it out and upgrade it if you think its not good enough for you. 99 users out of 100 would not know the difference if the op amp was changed - and I'm being kind to you there :D
I would like to compare the DAC quality between the onboard and ZXR. Creative has not publicized the DAC used on-chip but you seem to have some in-circle special information about that. Do share. Are you perhaps a part of the Creative developer team?
-
You're the one gasping for straws here. For reasons I stated earlyer these minor details are not the defining factor by any imaginable stretch. Not only that, Gigabyte left the opamp open socket so you can just pull it out and upgrade it if you think its not good enough for you. 99 users out of 100 would not know the difference if the op amp was changed - and I'm being kind to you there :D
You're being funny now.
So you're still claiming Gigabyte onboard is better sounding than discrete cards like XST or ZXR?
-
You're being funny now.
So you're still claiming Gigabyte onboard is better sounding than discrete cards like XST or ZXR?
I never claimed that. I claimed that technically there's nothing stopping an onboard solution from matching or exceeding a discrete card. And I showed the Gigabyte board as an example of a higher end implementation of onboard audio.
So do tell me, which DAC does the Core3D have inside it and how does it compare to the DAC of your XST or ZXR? Creative build the Core3D as a replacement chip to the old X-Fi so one would think it's at least comparable to that quality wise. I'm asking you this because you seemed to be very _sure_ that it had an inferior components inside. Since this information is not public, reveal your information please.
-
And as edit: Do know that I'm heavily into red wine at the moment (I'm finnish after all) and I appreciate your audio enthusiasm despite the argument. Nothing is more fun than arguing on matters of passion. :old:
-
On chip DAC is 6ch 24bit, 102dB SNR, ADC is 4ch 24bit 101dB SNR
All public information
-
On chip DAC is 6ch 24bit, 102dB SNR, ADC is 4ch 24bit 101dB SNR
All public information
Ok, but which DAC is that? And I hope you realize that even the very best of High-end amplifiers struggle to get 102db SNR ;) For example one of my favourite amps of all time, Mark Levinson No. 334 had only 80db s/n ratio ;)
(http://www.fullrange.kr/home/hosting_users/pumred/www/userfiles/scaled_ML_334__front_view__1_edited-2.jpg)
-
Most importantly what music do you listen to?.
-
Most importantly what music do you listen to?.
I'm into multiple genres. Verdi, Sibelius, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Down tempo (several artists), Tom Waits, Electronic (Daft Punk etc), Drum&bass (hospital records/Tony Colman, Danny Byrd, Gresham brothers, Carlos SPY, Etherwood etc my favourite), Vangelis etc. etc. etc. Marvin Gaye, Royksopp, Aerosmith, Run DMC, Public Enemy, Jungle, Dimitris Mitropanos... The list is too long.
-
They are all Poo! :rofl
I am off to bed :aok
-
They are all Poo! :rofl
I am off to bed :aok
One mans poo is others fertilizer. You're best off to bed indeed.
-
Ok, but which DAC is that? And I hope you realize that even the very best of High-end amplifiers struggle to get 102db SNR ;)
And you know that today most of the sources are digital hence the need for DACs, right? And what the SNR (ideal) values for DACs should be at given resolution and sampling rate?
Also, IIRC, high-end AMPs SN is typically measured at 1W not at full output.
For example one of my favourite amps of all time, Mark Levinson No. 334 had only 80db s/n ratio ;)
Oh yes, at 1W and even if that'd be at full output, it would be plenty for vinyl ;)
-
And you know that today most of the sources are digital hence the need for DACs, right? And what the SNR (ideal) values for DACs should be at given resolution and sampling rate?
Also, IIRC, high-end AMPs SN is typically measured at 1W not at full output.
Oh yes, at 1W and even if that'd be at full output, it would be plenty for vinyl ;)
The 334 can weld metal if needed. Most people never understand what that means. I'm going to pass out now.. good night.
-
I should have asked for help in deciding who was prettier, ginger or maryann. that would have been easier :bhead.
semp
-
I'm just not sure I would go with a sound card anymore. Last couple I had caused issues.
-
I'm just not sure I would go with a sound card anymore. Last couple I had caused issues.
Creative zX is worth every penny.
-
Creative zX is worth every penny.
At 150 bucks it's a waste of money. You should choose a cheaper model. The 50 bucks price audio control module is seriously flawed, several reports tell that it severely degrades audio quality as opposed to plugging the headphones directly to the card. The zX uses the same Core3D chip like the built in solution discussed earlier, by the way.
The 30 dollar Asus Xonar DG has got really good reviews and gives a good bang for buck. It uses the C-media processor.
UPDATE - 4/20/13
So, I have brought this issue up with others on Head-Fi (audiophile website forums). Many others have tested this out for themselves and have reported back with the same problem. There have been many differnt headphones used and the problem exists with all of them (Superlux HS668b, Ultrasone Pro900, Sony V-6, Sennheiser 558...ect).
It is worth noting that while the ACM degrades audio quality, the built in microphone on the ACM is better than the microphone on the Z model. I have tested out both mics and compared them with my Zalman Zm-Mic1 ($8) and the Zx mic is on par with the Zalman - while the Z model mic is not as good.
Also, it seems the people with the ZxR model ($250) are not noticing a big difference in audio quality with the ACM. That does not mean it does not degrade the audio - but those I have conversed with on Head-fi stated that the audio was not significantly affected. So, MAYBE the ZxR model has a better ACM.
UPDATE: 6/6/13:
Here is a link to the Head-fi forum where I first started this conversation. The conversation goes on for several pages of the forum. My username on Head-fi is Povell42
Link: [...]
Here is a link to the same forum (pg 31) where others agree with me and the user phrozenspite confirms that the same issue happens with his ZXR Model.
Link: [...]
-
At 150 bucks it's a waste of money. Youto the should choose a cheaper model. The 50 bucks price audio control module is seriously flawed, several reports tell that it severely degrades audio quality as opposed to plugging the headphones directly to the card. The zX uses the same Core3D chip like the built in solution discussed earlier, by the way.
The 30 dollar Asus Xonar DG has got really good reviews and gives a good bang for buck. It uses the C-media processor.
there's no comparison in those cards, z wins easily. And they are only 90 bucks. I own the z and also a similar card to the dg.
semp
-
there's no comparison in those cards, z wins easily. And they are only 90 bucks. I own the z and also a similar card to the dg.
semp
LOL I highly doubt it's worth the price difference.
-
Computers are a waste of money unless you are making money from them, Ripley. Real life is much more interesting. It's all in how you look at it.
Next you will be telling me that buying WD Xe drives are a waste of money. You would be wrong there too.
-
Computers are a waste of money unless you are making money from them, Ripley. Real life is much more interesting. It's all in how you look at it.
Next you will be telling me that buying WD Xe drives are a waste of money. You would be wrong there too.
You seem to be right on every matter lately. There is such a thing as return for your money and that you do not get paying triple price for that card. And buying Xe drives are indeed a waste of money if you run a desktop. SSDs will do the same job much more efficiently.
-
LOL I highly doubt it's worth the price difference.
to me it is. Have you owned the z and compared it against the asus?
semp
-
You seem to be right on every matter lately. There is such a thing as return for your money and that you do not get paying triple price for that card. And buying Xe drives are indeed a waste of money if you run a desktop. SSDs will do the same job much more efficiently.
Uh, no. More evidence that you do not understand specialized technology. There is a reason you buy an Xe drive over an SSD. Similarly, there is a reason you buy a specialized sound card over a motherboard with an extra sound chip on it. But, there are many humans that are just tone deaf and that will never understand. It doesn't make sense for a color blind person to be a color coordinator, so I never will understand why you continue to offer opinions on hardware.
-
Just to make a general statement here. Please cease the personal attacks and keep to the facts of the matter at hand.
Everyone has an opinion when it comes to sound. Feel free to express said opinion, but do so without taking cheap shots at others opinions.
There are a lot of people who would not get any benefit from a high end audio device for their computer. People who think there is no difference between a $2.00 audio chip and a $950 audio card (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/HDSPeRayDAT/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=audio&utm_term=rme_hdspe_raydat&adpos=1t1&creative=14165894161&device=c&network=g&matchtype=b&gclid=COvj8v2WucACFWoR7AoddGQASQ) have no need for that high end card.
Just because one person does not need it, does not mean it is not a better solution for someone else.
-
Just to make a general statement here. Please cease the personal attacks and keep to the facts of the matter at hand.
Everyone has an opinion when it comes to sound. Feel free to express said opinion, but do so without taking cheap shots at others opinions.
There are a lot of people who would not get any benefit from a high end audio device for their computer. People who think there is no difference between a $2.00 audio chip and a $950 audio card (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/HDSPeRayDAT/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=audio&utm_term=rme_hdspe_raydat&adpos=1t1&creative=14165894161&device=c&network=g&matchtype=b&gclid=COvj8v2WucACFWoR7AoddGQASQ) have no need for that high end card.
Just because one person does not need it, does not mean it is not a better solution for someone else.
You may have nailed me on the $2 buck chip statement. I just know that a xonar I had didn't make it and neither did an older Creative Labs SE card. However, I may have done something in error. I'll investigate further.
-
Ok, but which DAC is that? And I hope you realize that even the very best of High-end amplifiers struggle to get 102db SNR ;) For example one of my favourite amps of all time, Mark Levinson No. 334 had only 80db s/n ratio ;)
(http://www.fullrange.kr/home/hosting_users/pumred/www/userfiles/scaled_ML_334__front_view__1_edited-2.jpg)
Yes the Levinson can weld metal and melt your face at the same time,I've listen to several levinson amp and any of them would be overkill for most homes!
I was invited to a VIP demo of a new projector system for the home a few weeks ago,the complete system was just north of 180 grand! :O but you could get any screen size that would fit your room and it did come with complementary theater seats and a popcorn machine. It was using a "Valve" Macintosh amp assembly and the speakers were various,depending on the room.
I have to suffer with an older integra amp,it only has 3 valves but it's considered a hybred design.Personally I dont like electrostatic speakers,maybe I've never heard the "right" ones but they always seem to lack bottom end and the ultra highs,which I cant hear anymore used to sound tinny to me. Yes I know a good sub will take care of the bottom but I've never seen a electrosub! My integra runs and even old pair,ya only a pair of castle speakers which can cause you to loose your hearing! I did have a pair of EV's but once I had a kid running around I had to move the speakers up out of reach and the EV's at about 100 lbs were just to big!
Besides my son actually poked on of the mids and that was about a 350$ lesson!
I picked up a thorens at an auction for too cheap.... and use a stanton cartridge,the thorens is all manual,the cheapy but still one of the nicest turntables for the price!
Every once in awhile I listen to Zack play drums...ya I have the vapours on vinyl! :devil
As for sound cards.....bla I cant listen to music thats played on a computer!
:salute
-
People who think there is no difference between a $2.00 audio chip and a $950 audio card (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/HDSPeRayDAT/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=audio&utm_term=rme_hdspe_raydat&adpos=1t1&creative=14165894161&device=c&network=g&matchtype=b&gclid=COvj8v2WucACFWoR7AoddGQASQ) have no need for that high end card.
We both know that would not be a good solution for AH.
-
Uh, no. More evidence that you do not understand specialized technology. There is a reason you buy an Xe drive over an SSD. Similarly, there is a reason you buy a specialized sound card over a motherboard with an extra sound chip on it. But, there are many humans that are just tone deaf and that will never understand. It doesn't make sense for a color blind person to be a color coordinator, so I never will understand why you continue to offer opinions on hardware.
Sure, enlighten me then. Since modern SSDs are superior to your Xe drives in every fathomable way I'm really interested in hearing your arguments.
Edit: Some food for thought: http://www.wired.com/2012/06/flash-data-centers/all/
-
Yes the Levinson can weld metal and melt your face at the same time,I've listen to several levinson amp and any of them would be overkill for most homes!
I was invited to a VIP demo of a new projector system for the home a few weeks ago,the complete system was just north of 180 grand! :O but you could get any screen size that would fit your room and it did come with complementary theater seats and a popcorn machine. It was using a "Valve" Macintosh amp assembly and the speakers were various,depending on the room.
I have to suffer with an older integra amp,it only has 3 valves but it's considered a hybred design.Personally I dont like electrostatic speakers,maybe I've never heard the "right" ones but they always seem to lack bottom end and the ultra highs,which I cant hear anymore used to sound tinny to me. Yes I know a good sub will take care of the bottom but I've never seen a electrosub! My integra runs and even old pair,ya only a pair of castle speakers which can cause you to loose your hearing! I did have a pair of EV's but once I had a kid running around I had to move the speakers up out of reach and the EV's at about 100 lbs were just to big!
Besides my son actually poked on of the mids and that was about a 350$ lesson!
I picked up a thorens at an auction for too cheap.... and use a stanton cartridge,the thorens is all manual,the cheapy but still one of the nicest turntables for the price!
Every once in awhile I listen to Zack play drums...ya I have the vapours on vinyl! :devil
As for sound cards.....bla I cant listen to music thats played on a computer!
:salute
I also wouldn't invest into a computer gaming sound card. If I wanted to build a PC for music it would use a high-end non-gaming sound card. Currently I'm using my Macbook pro with a USB DAC although the MBP and the iPhone do a pretty good job playing straight from the jack too.
I have Electro-Voice ELX112P:s for outdoor party / garden listening by the way. My mobile party set has a combined output power of 4,5 kilowatts :) I can host even a large party easily.
If the ESL you've listened has lacked also TOP end :O were you perhaps listening to the legendary Quad63's? They're quoted as the worlds finest mid-range speakers :D
Usually ESLs have extremely high quality high frequency response due to the operating method. But you need to sit absolutely in the sweet spot because you can hear the highs only direcly in front of the panel. Cheap ESLs are actually usually overbright because they lack the active correction required. A good ESL will have a shelving EQ circuit to correct the dipole roll-off and suck out the panel resonance bump. Also the size of the panel matters a lot, small curved ESLs I don't like either. For example Martin Logans smaller models - I can't stand them. Not directive enough and you can hear the muddy bass because theyre hybrid. Full range ESL (the size of a barn door) and a good dipole or kardioid sub is the way to go. Also transmission line bass is said to be excellent with ESLs but they're very bulky.
-
We both know that would not be a good solution for AH.
Just to make sure, you sure you understood what lack of OpenAL support meant? That audio is processed in software, not hardware when playing AH? The C-media chip based Xonar (in case it uses Xear3D EX) has drivers that create a completely transparent OpenAL support which in theory at least, should enable hardware acceleration also with Aces High. Creative has not developed the Alchemy anymore because they don't see software processing as a problem with current multi-core cpus. That's why their list of supported games has been stale for years.
-
I also wouldn't invest into a computer gaming sound card. If I wanted to build a PC for music it would use a high-end non-gaming sound card. C
but all I asked was for a sound card that would use my 7.1 tianam set.
and I got a good lead. wasnt the best but it was the best I could afford. did I need a sound card? probably no more than the ssd's you have been pushing.
end result I got a sound card i am ok with. as I get some more ot I will get the better sound card. but I will keep my motherboard as it wil be less expensive.
semp
-
but all I asked was for a sound card that would use my 7.1 tianam set.
and I got a good lead. wasnt the best but it was the best I could afford. did I need a sound card? probably no more than the ssd's you have been pushing.
end result I got a sound card i am ok with. as I get some more ot I will get the better sound card. but I will keep my motherboard as it wil be less expensive.
semp
Yes you're right I took it completely off topic I'm sorry. I would just recommend you to stay away from the Z-series mid-range models that have the extrernal control panel (due to the reports of degraded quality). You save money a lot by getting the basic version and plug directly to the card for 7.1.
edit: so it was a headset. Yes, then the card quality can make a big difference, especially the possible lack of a proper headphone amplifier. Razer used to have a list of recommended sound cards on the Tiamat site but it has been pulled for some reason. Some googling gave many references to the Xonar cards (especially Phoebus) which people had been very happy with.
-
Yes
I have a SB recon 3d card which i never used until i got my new headphones.
The G35 was usb and was simulated, in fact they are very nice for music and films.
G35 are not good enough for a flight sim game in regards to location of sounds, my new headphones reproduce in game sounds in the correct position
The Roccat Kave headphones are analogue which is a bit misleading, how can they be when they are plugging into a chip based board which is essential made up of micropressors.
-
Yes
I have a SB recon 3d card which i never used until i got my new headphones.
The G35 was usb and was simulated, in fact they are very nice for music and films.
G35 are not good enough for a flight sim game in regards to location of sounds, my new headphones reproduce in game sounds in the correct position
The Roccat Kave headphones are analogue which is a bit misleading, how can they be when they are plugging into a chip based board which is essential made up of micropressors.
It's not misleading because there is a digital to analog conversion in between the headset and the card. If the headset would have its own usb sound card, it would be 'digital'.
-
Yes but the conversion is a data conversion of digital information on a chip.
Is it the same a a microphone/guitar electrical signal being sent through a non microprocessor amplifier?
-
Yes but the conversion is a data conversion of digital information on a chip.
Is it the same a a microphone/guitar electrical signal being sent through a non microprocessor amplifier?
The headphones are analog if they accept analog signal. The preceding signal chain does not count in the definition in any way. Your whole signal chain would need to be analog in your way of thinking, banning the use of mp3, cd etc. players and recording audio to tapes or vinyl. Or wax cylinders :lol
-
So analogue audio input on a chip based amplifier is not affect in any manner?.
-
So analogue audio input on a chip based amplifier is not affect in any manner?.
I don't follow you. If you mean an amp with digital signal processing then the analog signal will get converted to digital and then back to analog after processing, for amplification. An amplifier can be 'chip' based without being digital. The whole back-end of a power amplifier can be one integrated circuit as often is in the cheaper amplifiers. It works analog not digital however.
-
The "degrading sound quality of my zX" is as incorrect as my power supply being inferior.
-
See Rule #4, #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #4, #2
-
I also wouldn't invest into a computer gaming sound card. If I wanted to build a PC for music it would use a high-end non-gaming sound card. Currently I'm using my Macbook pro with a USB DAC although the MBP and the iPhone do a pretty good job playing straight from the jack too.
I have Electro-Voice ELX112P:s for outdoor party / garden listening by the way. My mobile party set has a combined output power of 4,5 kilowatts :) I can host even a large party easily.
If the ESL you've listened has lacked also TOP end :O were you perhaps listening to the legendary Quad63's? They're quoted as the worlds finest mid-range speakers :D
Usually ESLs have extremely high quality high frequency response due to the operating method. But you need to sit absolutely in the sweet spot because you can hear the highs only direcly in front of the panel. Cheap ESLs are actually usually overbright because they lack the active correction required. A good ESL will have a shelving EQ circuit to correct the dipole roll-off and suck out the panel resonance bump. Also the size of the panel matters a lot, small curved ESLs I don't like either. For example Martin Logans smaller models - I can't stand them. Not directive enough and you can hear the muddy bass because theyre hybrid. Full range ESL (the size of a barn door) and a good dipole or kardioid sub is the way to go. Also transmission line bass is said to be excellent with ESLs but they're very bulky.
You misunderstood me,I said they lacked bottom end not top! The highs were too brilliant for my taste and the reason I said they sounded tinny...
I was in a proper "listening room" and I remember it was a tangent amp,the shop was trying to sell me some new speakers and since it was awhile back I cant remember all the particulars. IIRC they had a set of magna's and another ESL,I was looking at a used set of crowns but settled on the EV's their interface series D models.
Today I only really like to listen to records with all the hiss pops and crackles,IMHO digital sound just doesnt do it for me. I have a fairly large collection of old vinyl so if I really need a music fix there's always something I havent heard in a long time.
Sure I have CD's and a nice player but it just sounds "canned" to me. Tho with my hearing pretty much everything sounds that way! :o
:salute
-
You misunderstood me,I said they lacked bottom end not top! The highs were too brilliant for my taste and the reason I said they sounded tinny...
I was in a proper "listening room" and I remember it was a tangent amp,the shop was trying to sell me some new speakers and since it was awhile back I cant remember all the particulars. IIRC they had a set of magna's and another ESL,I was looking at a used set of crowns but settled on the EV's their interface series D models.
Today I only really like to listen to records with all the hiss pops and crackles,IMHO digital sound just doesnt do it for me. I have a fairly large collection of old vinyl so if I really need a music fix there's always something I havent heard in a long time.
Sure I have CD's and a nice player but it just sounds "canned" to me. Tho with my hearing pretty much everything sounds that way! :o
:salute
Yeah if they were too bright then they lacked the active correction I was speaking about. It's essential for ESLs.
Here is a response graph (unsmoothed, note that normally graphs are smoothed so you dont see all the ripples) from a DIY ESL panel:
(http://www.audiocircuit.com/A-Images/AA-Projects-DPR/SheldonStokes-SS/941-DEX-SS-SPE-swee_-P-B01.jpg)
You see the characteristic dipole roll-off and then the panel resonance bump at the bottom. Both those have to be suppressed with correction circuits if you want the panel to sound anywhere near good.
Here is the response graph of the Innersound Eros active corrected ESL:
(http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Erofig09.jpg)
Due to the strong directivity of the panel the frequency response of an ESL must be similar to a normal speakers power response. A flat response will still sound way overbright.
-
See Rule #2
-
Those graphs showing smoothing of the sound should be deleted!
I got drunk yesterday and that was the first thing i saw this morning :cry
He has some nice headphones now :)
-
Yeah if they were too bright then they lacked the active correction I was speaking about. It's essential for ESLs.
Here is a response graph (unsmoothed, note that normally graphs are smoothed so you dont see all the ripples) from a DIY ESL panel:
(http://www.audiocircuit.com/A-Images/AA-Projects-DPR/SheldonStokes-SS/941-DEX-SS-SPE-swee_-P-B01.jpg)
You see the characteristic dipole roll-off and then the panel resonance bump at the bottom. Both those have to be suppressed with correction circuits if you want the panel to sound anywhere near good.
Here is the response graph of the Innersound Eros active corrected ESL:
(http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Erofig09.jpg)
Due to the strong directivity of the panel the frequency response of an ESL must be similar to a normal speakers power response. A flat response will still sound way overbright.
I remember the had a frequency slope equalizer,a pink noise machine and a regular equalizer call connected so I could customize the sound to my tastes!
That said you corrected graph pretty much shows what I experienced,a brilliant top end and a lack of bottom. It's not like that cant be corrected with a nice sub and lowering the highs somewhat but I found you need the right room to listen to ESL's. If you stick them in the corner they will echo off the wall and the room needs to be quite large to stop that.
Not that any of this matters to me anymore as I said I've lost the best part of my hearing and cant hear the highs anymore...Hmmm maybe the ESL's wont sound so brilliant and I need to go listen to some again.... :devil As a result I've all but lost interest in putting together a sound system.
:salute
-
Skuzzy why battle with him its an endless battle
-
I remember the had a frequency slope equalizer,a pink noise machine and a regular equalizer call connected so I could customize the sound to my tastes!
That said you corrected graph pretty much shows what I experienced,a brilliant top end and a lack of bottom. It's not like that cant be corrected with a nice sub and lowering the highs somewhat but I found you need the right room to listen to ESL's. If you stick them in the corner they will echo off the wall and the room needs to be quite large to stop that.
Not that any of this matters to me anymore as I said I've lost the best part of my hearing and cant hear the highs anymore...Hmmm maybe the ESL's wont sound so brilliant and I need to go listen to some again.... :devil As a result I've all but lost interest in putting together a sound system.
:salute
You should definately try out an active ESL. The clarity of the midrange is something that can't be heard from any other type of speaker. One of my friends described it like 'you can hear the silence between notes'. The response is so uncolored and fast that it makes regular speakers sound round and blurred.
-
Skuzzy why battle with him its an endless battle
Its law :old:
I have some Small Faces albums and they were one of the first records in the 60's to be recorded in stereo, they have bee digitised and they are "Totally" different :)
-
Its law :old:
I have some Small Faces albums and they were one of the first records in the 60's to be recorded in stereo, they have bee digitised and they are "Totally" different :)
I'll see your small faces in stereo and up it with a mono beatles album! :devil
Great group the smalls were!
:salute
-
I have a conterfiet "Rubber Soul" its all in Russian even the "Rubber Soul" title on the album cover :rofl
Its the Beatles original recordings but they are slighty faster than the original :rofl