need advise on 7.1 sound card

[MrRiplEy[H]]

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.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

See Rule #4

[MrRiplEy[H]]

See Rule #4

[Masherbrum]

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.    

[MrRiplEy[H]]

See Rule #4

[Chalenge]

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.

[Skuzzy]

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.

[2bighorn]

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.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

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?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

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.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

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?

[Skuzzy]

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.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

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.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

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.

[Skuzzy]

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.