Slashdot Mirror


Do You Really Need a Discrete Sound Card?

crookedvulture writes "Integrated audio has become a common freebie on motherboards, causing many to question whether there's any need to have a sound card. Tech Report took a closer look at the issue by testing the latest integrated Realtek codec against a couple of sound cards: Asus' $30 Xonar DG and its considerably more expensive $280 Xense cousin. Everything from gaming performance to signal quality is explored, and it's the blind listening tests that prove most revealing. The integrated solution is obviously flawed, and in a bit of a surprise, the cheaper Xonar is the one most preferred. Discrete sound cards certainly have their benefits, and you don't need to spend a lot to get something that sounds a lot better than the average motherboard."

520 comments

  1. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Built in motherboard sound cars always sound horrible.

    Most integrated sound cards broadcast your electricity and network signals over your sound card.

    1. Re:Yes by HermMunster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the built in sound cards are pretty decent, for virtually everything (games, music, videos, etc). The average person doesn't care.

      The built in cards are no more free than the on-board IDE/SATA/USB/network. It's part of the board and it has a component cost. Just because a component can be replaced with a PCI card doesn't mean that the on-board component is free.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    2. Re:Yes by afidel · · Score: 1

      Toslink, will get you DD 5.1 with zero interference from the EMI in the case =) Of course now I've upgraded to using the codec in my 5750 so I can bitstream any format.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really can't tell the difference because you got used to using onbord sound only. Trust me the difference is there, and is visible to anyone not just professionals. Of course if you're the type who also uses some desktop speakers instead of a real sound system or some good headphones, then you really shouldn't care.

    4. Re:Yes by Pojut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In my experience, the only time it's worth having a discrete sound card is if you have a kick-ass set of headphones (or speaker setup). For the average $100 set of headphones/$400 speaker setup? Totally unecessary. Now, it's worth it if you want "surround" virtualization with headphones, but otherwise, again, totally unecessary.

      Of course, if you truly care about sound quality, you'll just use a digital output (either through USB or Optical) and buy a nice external DAC, thereby completely bypassing any potential electrical interference generated from a sound card.

      Note: I run an ATH-AD700 off my built-in sound card and I think it sounds great, so no accusations of audiodouchebaggery on my part, please.

    5. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It kinda is free. Once it's integrated... it's virtually no cost to the motherboard maker... so low in fact that (in an industry that is famous for pinching every penny) they don't care. They use it purely as product differentiation.

      See also: mobile phones and the drive to integrate GPS/Sound/Video/CPU onto one chip. They start out discrete... and the drive to lower costs and size mean it all gets integration - if you don't believe me, look at what you can get in the UK. A mobile phone with a colour LCD screen - with built in FM radio... for £1.

    6. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      for the average $400 speaker setup?

      are you out of your mind?

      Out of hundreds of people that I interact with during any given week, none of them have $400 speakers hooked up their PEE CEE.

      no wonder this country is going to shit.

    7. Re:Yes by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Never heard of people using one of those "home theater in a box" setups? Or people producing music? Or people dual-purposing a high-end audio setup?

    8. Re:Yes by arivanov · · Score: 2, Informative

      Depends which ones. I have tried making a media center out of nearly anything short of a dead badger. Based on my experience:

      Most VIA EPIAs have sound quality on par with discrete audio solutions. It is something you can hook to a proper amp and not be disgusted by what comes out from the other end. Most via based mini-ITXes can proudly play flac encoded audio with proper Hi Fi quality. So are some of the older Crystal Audio chipsets found on really old high end motherboards.

      Compared to that most audio on Intel chipset motherboards I have had to deal with is utter tripe (with the notable exemption of Asus). The most common problems are:

      1. Interference from the network hardware. As the network works it "ticks" over the audio channel. Makes a PC totally unusable for music. This is more common on older kit, though I still see it here and there even today.
      2. IRQ interference problems on new hardware. I thought that shared IRQ problems are something of the distant (circa 1998) past. Recently Fujitsu-Siemens and Intel proved me wrong. The Intel HD on the Scaleo-E needs special IRQ tweaking on Linux in order not to skip: http://foswiki.sigsegv.cx/bin/view/Net/DebianScaleoE
      3. Distortion. Most onboard Intel HD audio has notable distortion in the high freq range. Examples - HP 6xxx series laptops, Lenovo S10e.

      You get whatever you pay for. Viva le monopoly - result is crap video, crap audio, crap disk IO and the consumer is blaming it all on guess what - the too slow CPU so they are aiming to get a bigger one for Xmas which is in favour of guess who...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    9. Re:Yes by HermMunster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've been in the industry for about 25 years. And I can tell. I have a media center set up with about 15 speakers in all. I definitely can tell. I don't disagree with you that sound quality and features are better with an add-in card. I just don't agree that sound quality is that bad with on-board audio.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    10. Re:Yes by sjames · · Score: 1

      It is a lot cheaper though. No extra board, just a couple more inexpensive components for the pick and place machine. The solder, admin overhead, etc comes for free since the board gets that with or without the extra chip. That's especially true with the common technique of making one master board and then lesser boards are just a matter of not actually placing all of the chips.

      In more tightly integrated chipsets it costs even less. They don't save much at all leaving part of the die blank. Then it's just a matter of the few analog components.

    11. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have $400 speakers plugged in to my TV! People producing music are not your "average" setup.

    12. Re:Yes by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I tried that on my desktop at home, kinda funny, but the interference got encoded into the TOSlink signal, as at some point it has to travel electrically. I was kind of surprised about this, as I would have thought it would sound good too, but Realtek truly is utter crap.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:Yes by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I don't have $400 speakers plugged in to my TV!

      I didn't say $400 speakers, I said setup. There is a very, VERY big difference.

      People producing music are not your "average" setup.

      You sure about that? You'd be surprised how low-budget you can go and still produce a great-quality sound.

    14. Re:Yes by clintp · · Score: 1

      In my experience, the only time it's worth having a discrete sound card is if you have a kick-ass set of headphones (or speaker setup). For the average $100 set of headphones/$400 speaker setup? Totally unecessary. Now, it's worth it if you want "surround" virtualization with headphones, but otherwise, again, totally unecessary.

      Of course, if you truly care about sound quality, you'll just use a digital output (either through USB or Optical) and buy a nice external DAC, thereby completely bypassing any potential electrical interference generated from a sound card.

      Note: I run an ATH-AD700 off my built-in sound card and I think it sounds great, so no accusations of audiodouchebaggery on my part, please.

      Don't forget your gold-plated cables.

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    15. Re:Yes by vlm · · Score: 1

      I have considerable experience building "media centers" and mythtv boxes.

      The 4th common problem I've found is hissy. Low signal to noise ratio by virtue of high white (pink?) noise level.

      The 5th common problem I've found is weak outputs. I have a 1st gen mac mini as sort of a MP3 jukebox and it just barely outputs line level on a good day. It's probably running a bit low to my occasional annoyance. So just run everything at a lower level, resulting in problem #4 rearing its ugly head again hisssssssssssss.

      The 6th common problem I've found is way funky drivers with creeping featureitis: weird pre-distortion to "expand the stereo experience", equalization that doesn't work as well as a real eq although it clips pretty well, strange attempts at internal DSP to simulate echos. Just turn my bytes into AC voltage and leave it alone, please!

      The 7th common problem, admittedly not too often a problem, is ground loops. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Gimme a transformer isolated input any day. Not so bad with optical digital inputs of course.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    16. Re:Yes by Rewind · · Score: 1

      I just use my 'motherboard sound car' :p for the optical out to a receiver. The receiver does all the work so the quality of the onboard is almost totally irrelevant.

      On top of that I would bet my bookshelves powered by a receiver from onboard audio sound better than many high end sound card to computer speaker setups.

      --
      ?
    17. Re:Yes by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      The average person doesn't care because they've never actually heard the difference. With integrated sound you lose general quality, volume, bass, and a whole bunch of other refinements I don't know anything about but can still hear. (Good gravy is EAX awesome.) This is on top of the fact that Realtek tends to be buggy as hell; when I used it, all manner of programs would crash constantly.

      The main thing I'd like to know is why this article didn't even consider the OG of sound cards, which until now was still the only one I was even aware was still in the business: Creative. How can you claim to know anything about the state of the industry if you pointedly ignore its 900 lb gorilla? I have an X-Fi and it's awesome.

    18. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I AM pretty sure that your average user is not producing sound.

      The average PC user, even the average PC gamer, is using the speakers that came in the box with his computer.

      And I don't care if the speakers are $400 by themselves, or you have to buy a separate amp to go with them. The people buying that set up are not "average".

    19. Re:Yes by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I didn't say $400 speakers, I said setup. There is a very, VERY big difference.

      For most of us, our "setup" is the two speakers plugged into our computer, so the setup = speakers in our minds. Needing more to the setup than just speakers is alien to me.

    20. Re:Yes by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I have two ~£120 speakers and a ~£120 amplifier attached to my "pee cee". The DVD player and a 3.5mm audio jack (for phones/MP3 players) are also connected.

      The difference between the on-board sound card (Intel something-or-other) and the PCI card (SoundBlaster Audigy 2 ZS, about £60 IIRC) is clear. It's also better than my flatmate's Macbook (which I assume isn't set up correctly, it's so awful).

    21. Re:Yes by DMalic · · Score: 1

      oh, come on. The difference between really crappy cables and gold-plated ones is likely to be inaudible in a blind test. You'd have to be deaf to miss the improvement from decent speakers/phones over the crappy PC ones.

    22. Re:Yes by DMalic · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder about this. At first I thought "well, maybe people who prefer discrete cars are incredible audiophiles who hear minute details I cannot appreciate." However, I've never had an integrated card where I couldn't turn it up far louder than it needed to go.

    23. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the problems caused by ungrounded power supplies for many of these machines (mostly notebooks). Oftentimes with a non-grounded supply on a notebook you get an awful "60 hz" hum in the audio. In fact, at work, it was so bad for the people using dragon naturally speaking (yes, it affected the microphones too and dropped the recognition rate) that we got Lenovo (IBM back then it was a few years ago) to supply us with grounded supplies for the affected users. It did take a long time to determine, then prove, that it was the power supply. Anyway, just one more place where PC sound can get fubared.

    24. Re:Yes by robot256 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While those kind of people do exist (and thanks for the laugh), the GP is not one of them. He said he could tell the difference--but wanted to reiterate TFA's statement that on-board audio is passable even though it is bested by a low-cost upgrade.

    25. Re:Yes by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I used to agree, but then I got a motherboard with really crappy onboard audio. I'd previously been using the on-board audio in a machine that also had a SoundBlaster Live because the quality was about the same but the drivers for the SB Live caused a crash about once a week (Windows and Linux with the Creative ones. The FreeBSD drivers were stable, but didn't support more than two channels back then).

      The motherboard that I then got had terrible on-board audio. Anything above about 70% volume caused a lot of clipping and sounded horrible. No idea why, but even a cheap ad-on card was an improvement.

      The biggest difference in sound quality that I've between cards for playback[1] was with an external USB one. Moving the DAC outside the case so the analogue parts are not in a noisy EM environment makes much more of a difference than any improvements over the quality of the components.

      [1] If you're doing effects on the card, it definitely does make a difference. The cheaper on-board cards did everything in 16-bit, so you got audible clipping from the artefacts. The better ones used 24- or 32-bit values for intermediate results.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...is visible to anyone not just professionals

      you can actually SEE the difference in onboard sound vs. add-in card? you must have better coat hanger wires than i do.

    27. Re:Yes by zuzulo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BTW, in my experience going with any onboard sound card is not the best way to go these days. I used to use lots of different high end sound cards, but now that new high end DACs (digital analog converter) actually have USB input, the best way to get sound out of a computer/digital device is the same way you get it off a high end turntable or CD transport - go from source to DAC, then convert it. The device drivers that allow you to treat an attached USB device as a digital audio device are very good, available for all platforms, and quite simple.

      So forget the sound card completely (and definitely dont use the onboard sound), go with a DAC that has USB and you will be amazed. Can also pick and choose a DAC that suits your requirements and pricepoint without messing about with your system config ... Like i said, this is a huge deal for folks who like to use computer based audio sources. Least it has been for me ...

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    28. Re:Yes by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Had that at work once. Discovered it about ten minutes before a big presentation to over a hundred people was due, and I had to bodge up a way to fix it using whatever I could get at such short notice. I ended up going Laptop -> 3.5mm-jack-to-phono cable -> audio isolation transformer for microphones with XLR input, running in reverse -> XLR-to-6.5mm-jack -> Amplifier input. It worked! Mono only, but that's all we needed.

    29. Re:Yes by HermMunster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No way, I am the type of person that says the $8.00 HDMI is as good as the $120 HDMI from Monster--because it is (www.3dguru.com). I'm the guy that says that the coat hanger sounds as good as the Monster audio cables. I am saying that the on-board sound is good enough for my audio system.

      Don't buy from Monster!!!!

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    30. Re:Yes by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it's www.guru3d.com

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    31. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't a DAC with USB input and audio jack output the same as a USB sound card?

    32. Re:Yes by treeves · · Score: 1

      I like expensive cables, but only when they are at least 72" inches long.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    33. Re:Yes by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You're the same kind of person who swears by the $700 dollar speaker cables, then in a blind test thinks the coathanger sounds the best.

      No, he'd be the type of person who has the $700 cables, but acknowledges that a coathanger works too. Which is much more reasonable than the monster cable people you're referring to.

    34. Re:Yes by mattventura · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. With the HDMI cables, there is no actual difference that you can perceive. However, with sound cards, there is a great difference. I can't stand the sound on my laptop but my desktop's sound card has much better sound. The companies that make high-quality sound cards aren't just making a cheap cable and marking it up 10x, they are actually making a product with a difference.

    35. Re:Yes by u17 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if cable material matters at all. What matters though, is the shielding. Believe it or not, it happened once that my Creative speakers acted as an antenna-receiver for some kind of radio signal (a dialogue of between two persons of which only one man could be heard), which could be heard faintly in the speakers even when the amplifier was turned down to zero. With better cables this may have been prevented.

    36. Re:Yes by ozbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just don't agree that sound quality is that bad with on-board audio.

      Yes, but what about silence quality? The onboard sound options I've tried over the last few years have all suffered from appalling noise levels. Installing even a basic but quiet sound card can make a big improvement in overall sound quality.

    37. Re:Yes by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      onboard share resources with the rest of the system while dedicated cards tend to have their own memory and processors. I've also had lots of problems with onboard cards and interference/feedback/hum/etc

    38. Re:Yes by teridon · · Score: 1

      Can you please elaborate on why you have 15 speakers? Are they all in one normal-sized room, or is it theater-sized? Scattered through a house?

      --
      I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
    39. Re:Yes by Y0tsuya · · Score: 1

      It's been at least 10 yrs since any consumer audio output processing has taxed any contemporary CPUs.

    40. Re:Yes by eepok · · Score: 1

      "Horrible"? No.
      "Less Good"? Likely.
      "Is a discrete card worth the money?" Depends on what you want and what you have to spend.

      Many people can't tell the difference without specific sound comparisons. Some still can't tell the difference.
      Many people don't think the monetary investment $20-$200 is worth the gains in sound and performance (off-loading work from an already burdened system, for example).

      I used to use a Soundblaster Live Value! and then Audigy with my system. The Audigy made it through 2 motherboard upgrades. When I got a new prefab system on a deal. My intent with the system is to make a low-wattage gaming machine, so in my experimentation, I decided to see if I could notice any significant performance and sound quality difference with the new system's onboard sound. I didn't hear/see enough to make me re-open the case.

      The Audigy stayed with my older power-hog of a rig when I handed it down to the GF.

    41. Re:Yes by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      USB has much higher cpu power use then any pci or on board sound card.

      What about on board sound over TOSlink?

    42. Re:Yes by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you're right and I probably don't have the best solution but it's effectively free and good enough. I rather put my money towards visuals.

    43. Re:Yes by eepok · · Score: 1

      I use a media center. A budget one. We don't need IMAX@Home. We're those people that don't see the value of HD. =P

      Acer Aspire X1300-U1801A (onboard sound, onboard video) -- $250
      Dell M109S SVGA (858 x 600) DLP projector -- ~$200
      2.0 Speakers
      Some $75 projector screen

      I set the PC under the coffee table, the projector on the coffee table on a small platform, and the screen ~7' away. It's effectively 40+ inches diagonal. The projection is dimmed by natural light, so if we want extra detail/contrast, we close the curtains.

      It's cheap. It's networked. It's earthquake safe. It's easily stored/transported.

    44. Re:Yes by dr_blurb · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you truly care about sound quality, you'll just use a digital output (either through USB or Optical) and buy a nice external DAC, thereby completely bypassing any potential electrical interference generated from a sound card.

      For value for money, the Behringer UCA202 is great (about $25): http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/UCA202.aspx

      A big step up is the Cambridge Audio DacMagic: http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/summary.php?PID=320 ($400 or so).

      Fantastic sound if you have a decent amp + speakers.

    45. Re:Yes by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      "Less Good"

      Otherwise known in English as "worse"

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    46. Re:Yes by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      We need separate sound cards because motherboard vendors write TERRIBLE drivers for their sound cards.

    47. Re:Yes by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, baby, it's not about the length - it's about how you plug it in.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    48. Re:Yes by Nick+Ives · · Score: 1

      Meh, I have half decent onboard audio; I say half decent because if I amp it up too much I can hear the noise.

      I don't really care, however, because I have an external 5.1 amplifier. If I keep my output low I don't hear any noise and can amp it up my surround system to the point where it's offensive to my neighbours and harmful to my ears and still have clean sound.

      If I used headphones more often I might care more about the noise levels though.

      The main thing that I found interesting about this article, however, is that the cheap sound card had a flatter frequency response. I think I'll consider purchasing a card simply for that!

      --
      Nick
    49. Re:Yes by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      For the average $100 set of headphones/$400 speaker setup?

      Thanks for the lesson in statistics to remind us all that "average" is a useless metric with sufficiently outlying outliers.

    50. Re:Yes by nxtw · · Score: 1

      The motherboard that I then got had terrible on-board audio. Anything above about 70% volume caused a lot of clipping and sounded horrible. No idea why, but even a cheap ad-on card was an improvement.

      In what operating system and sound system?

      I've had this problem consistently with Linux and ALSA and integrated audio. The problem never occurs on the same hardware with Mac OS X or Windows.

    51. Re:Yes by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Anything above about 70% volume caused a lot of clipping and sounded horrible. No idea why, but even a cheap ad-on card was an improvement.

      Go alsamixer -c 0 to see your sound card settings, it will give the volume in db for each channel. Have a look at the master channel and you will notice for most cards it hits 0db at about 74 percent or so. 100% is +12db, anything with a positive value results in nasty clipping. I imagine it is the same situation on windows but a bit harder to tell.

      [1] If you're doing effects on the card, it definitely does make a difference. The cheaper on-board cards did everything in 16-bit, so you got audible clipping from the artefacts. The better ones used 24- or 32-bit values for intermediate results.

      Even if you are doing actual audio work the only real reason to get a sound card is lower noise levels. In so far as the quality of the samples decent sound servers like jack do all their processing as 32-bit floats.

      Main use of this is errors don't become so cumulative. At the end when it is rendered at 16-bit for cd use it will sound better than if you'd used 16-bit for the whole process.

      In modern times relying on the sound card for mixing/effects/midi is just stupid, we have quad/oct core machines that have far lower latency doing it in software and more flexibility. We only need the sound card to essentially act as a dac now.

    52. Re:Yes by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Actually, the built in sound cards are pretty decent, for virtually everything

      Line recording? Mutli-channel recording? Surround encoding? How are the preamps for mic recording?
      Do they have sample-accurate digital transfer? In both directions? How does the 1/8" jack work out over a few months of location gigs? How clean is the output when connecting to a club or theatrical sound system?

      For some users, "virtually everything" also means "almost nothing."

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    53. Re:Yes by taucross · · Score: 1

      Any decent external DAC will run over Firewire which has minimal CPU overhead. These are usually made for recording, maybe a bit overkill for gaming. That being said, there is a huge difference between my Focusrite and the onboard sound. 24bit 192khz ftw (though in all honesty I can't hear a difference over 96khz)

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    54. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's actually quite easy to perceive the difference between quality HDMI cabling and the cheaply-made stuff. However it only shows up when the run is longer. When all you need is a cable to connect devices a few feet from each other, any crappy cable will do. When you need to run more than 50 or so feet of cabling, quality cables will improve the timeliness of the signal and reduce the amount of data that arrives after its usefulness (the signal may be digital, but it's still real-time and very small delays in signal transmission will result in visible artifacts.) Beyond 100 feet, I've been told you really need to transition to fiber optic for the bulk of the run.

      So it entirely depends on the context. An expensive monster 6ft cable is, as you've pointed out, a bad joke. An expensive 50ft cable is often very useful.

    55. Re:Yes by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Hey, let's be fair...

      Some discrete card vendors write TERRIBLE drivers for their Sound(...Blaster...) cards...

    56. Re:Yes by taucross · · Score: 1

      Gold plated cables are not good for sound quality, they're good on the road though because they don't corrode.

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    57. Re:Yes by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, if you aren't pushing the $100 headphone bracket or the studio monitor bracket more like $400 each, you're not in a category that can reasonably make the kind of value judgment regarding audio quality that's under discussion here. Basically you're below a threshold where the transducers and probably the room itself are far more important factors in sound quality than the sound output device (and we're ONLY considering INPUT here, correct?)

      Consumer audio devices above the threshold where they have bad noise problems (and many of them DO have really serious noise problems), have fidelity beyond the threshold of human perception. That makes relative value judgments among them pretty much meaningless. Which means, in context, TFA is absolutely correct. Consumer cards on the digital 2-channel output have exactly the same fidelity as any professional device on an internally-clocked digital output. Exactly the same, meaning there is provably no room for improvement.

      DACs are not all equal though, not by a long shot, and the average person can easily discriminate them in an A/B/X test, as long as the source material, the output device, and the listening environment permit this kind of judgment in the first place.

      Do not underestimate the importance of the room itself in this scenario. In a good enough room (and I don't mean it has to be the fscking mastering control room at Sterling Sound!), a mundane system can sound *excellent*. With just a little bit of treatment (bass traps in the most reflective spots) the average living room can be seriously improved. Or you can put a breathtakingly expensive, pro studio rig in a bad environment and end up with unimpressive results.

      If you're recording at all (and I don't just mean with professional recording expectations), the situation with consumer sound cards changes dramatically, and the low end of the products targeted at the pro market start to look (well, sound) very, very good.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    58. Re:Yes by treeves · · Score: 1

      Well, I figured my joke might be too opaque. I was riffing on "$700 dollar" and had to use some repeated units with symbols and words. Inches or feet seemed the most relevant. Thus, '72" inches'.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    59. Re:Yes by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Funny

      Under the right conditions, coat hangers can introduce clearly audible distortion. Coat hangers usually have a high iron content. The iron enhances the magnetic field inherent in any current flow, but if there's too much current flow, the iron saturates. Bingo, distortion.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    60. Re:Yes by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...and I was simply attempting to continue in your humorous vein by alluding to something with veins, but alas, the moderators recognized neither of our efforts, rendering us symbolically redundantly redundant, regardless of our intended thrust. We've been given the shaft, symbolically speaking. Those dicks.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    61. Re:Yes by Woodmeister · · Score: 1

      Word.

      --

      Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
      -Possum Lodge Motto
    62. Re:Yes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I *like* my gold-plated cables. I can use them in high-humidity environments and they don't corrode.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    63. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Which is why pro audio equipment using iron core transformers can sound so damn good when the i/o stages are driven to saturation. I dare say that using coathangers in place of bell wire to connect passive speakers would grately improve the sound of most of todays sterile sounding music. Not as much as muting it or turing it off, but it's a good start.

    64. Re:Yes by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Good speakers aren't cheap. Using several of cheap speakers at once might have a good sound, but good speakers aren't cheap.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    65. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have made a media centre out of a dead badger....it smelt awful

    66. Re:Yes by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      I've never had a pair of cables corrode, any that matter.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    67. Re:Yes by DarkXale · · Score: 1

      Coathangers do just fine on their own. But for the same reason that CAT6 requires more insulation, that coathanger won't necessary do if you run a lot of cables in close proximity.

    68. Re:Yes by gringer · · Score: 1

      Coat hangers usually have a high iron content. The iron enhances the magnetic field inherent in any current flow, but if there's too much current flow, the iron saturates.

      Related. Fig. 14 gets somewhat close to a coathanger.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    69. Re:Yes by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Maybe you just got a bad board or one that used cheaper caps? I can tell the difference between the "gamer" boards and the business class because of the sound. The business boards are actually pretty damned quiet while the gamer boards at least in my exp have been more noisy, probably because they figure you'll go with a card. My ECS business class with solid caps is as quiet as a church mouse and I've often turned off the receiver thinking I needed to turn it on simply because there wasn't any sound at all.

      So maybe you just got a bad one? I have noticed building PCs that sound quality (among other things) vary pretty wildly between companies and even models, which is why I would have liked them to have a larger amount of boards tested. After all you can pretty much say ALL onboard sound sucks if you are comparing a shitty Dell desktop or crapola Compaq laptop. That is why I pretty much stick with business class for all my builds. you may not get crossfire/SLI, but the quality of the board caps and traces IMHO makes up for that. Well that and I find the business class boards tend to last longer.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    70. Re:yes by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Actually the "Fatal1ty" series were good, since they came with the actual EMU20K1/2 DSP. The X-Fi XtremeMusic and Xtreme Audio were rebranded/tweaked SB Live! chipsets and thus lacked the capabilities of the rest of the X-Fi line.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    71. Re:Yes by arivanov · · Score: 1

      The 4th common problem I've found is hissy. Low signal to noise ratio by virtue of high white (pink?) noise level.

      And that one too, though in a lot of cases it can be traced to the power supply. That is one of the reasons why the MiniITX systems tend to behave better - most of their cases have the low freq AC portion out of the case in a separate dead rat. In a lot of cases it is actually not the PC fault. There was a long period between mid-90-es and mid-2000es when the manufacturers did not give a damn about the AUX input on most kit. On a lot of cheap kit from those days you get passable CD playback and surprisingly hissy and crappy AUX. This cannot be helped :(

      The 5th common problem I've found is weak outputs. I have a 1st gen mac mini as sort of a MP3 jukebox and it just barely outputs line level on a good day. It's probably running a bit low to my occasional annoyance. So just run everything at a lower level, resulting in problem #4 rearing its ugly head again hisssssssssssss.

      I am typing this on one of those and I am surprised that you get it to produce tolerable audio in the first place (unless you left it with OSX). My experience with that one is that it skips. It is supposedly fixed in the latest ALSA drivers though.

      The 6th common problem I've found is way funky drivers with creeping featureitis: weird pre-distortion to "expand the stereo experience", equalization that doesn't work as well as a real eq although it clips pretty well, strange attempts at internal DSP to simulate echos. Just turn my bytes into AC voltage and leave it alone, please!

      Most of these can be disabled from a decent mixer even if they are implemented in hardware. The bloody Fuji-Siemens Scaleo and other Intel HD systems are an example at hand here as it has all kinds of unwanted effects you have to put to 0 to get decent sound.

      The 7th common problem, admittedly not too often a problem, is ground loops. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Gimme a transformer isolated input any day. Not so bad with optical digital inputs of course.

      Aaa.. that one. Now that is a very interesting one. If you perform surgery on the stereo connector on a lot of these you can find that the imbecile designing it has used a 4 contact connector they can do "easy" headphone detection and report headphones presense in software (instead of doing this based on current). That can often be helped by using a 4 contact connector similar to the one used by Nokia for their universal cable (audio+video) instead of 3 (left, right, ground) and doing some soldering of your own. It is of course unnecessary if it is implemented correctly (HP NC4000 is a good example).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    72. Re:Yes by squizzar · · Score: 1

      I concur, I've had a few motherboards that seem to have crosstalk issues - you could 'hear' the IDE bus etc. Discrete sound card didn't have the same problems.

    73. Re:yes by unity100 · · Score: 1

      there was an earlier batch of x treme music that didnt fall in that category. people were looking for that for that very reason.

    74. Re:Yes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Rather than getting a high end sound card I would suggest getting an external DAC. You can audition a few to find one you like (I use a C.E.C. DA53) and then just throw in a cheap soundcard. In fact cheap cards based on Via chipsets are often the best because they are capable of "bit-perfect" output. In other words you can configure your media player (I use Winamp) to bypass the usual volume and mixing controls and send the raw data to the DAC. It is apparently easy in Linux but on XP you need ither kernel stream or ASIO4All and in Vista/7 you need WASAPI.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    75. Re:Yes by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, if you aren't pushing the $100 headphone bracket or the studio monitor bracket more like $400 each, you're not in a category that can reasonably make the kind of value judgment regarding audio quality that's under discussion here

      You completely missed the point.

      Joe Schmuckatelli does not have $100 headphones and $400 speakers on his PC. Those that do are the aforementioned outliers.

    76. Re:Yes by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Joe Schmuckatelli also doesn't know what a sound card is other than "the thing I plug my speakers into", if even that.

      I don't think Joe Schmuckatelli would have a place at the table where this discussion would be taking place...do you?

    77. Re:Yes by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      No, but he's got to be considered if you're going to start throwing around bullshit numbers.

      None of the use cases offered as justification for your numbers even approach "common" much less "average person" use.

      The discussion at hand has just cemented, in my mind, the notion that discrete sound cards are a niche product.

    78. Re:Yes by Pojut · · Score: 1

      The discussion at hand has just cemented, in my mind, the notion that discrete sound cards are a niche product.

      On that, I completely agree. The difference is noticable, but as far as I'm concerned, on-board is "good enough". I'd rather spend that $50-$300 on more RAM, a better CPU, or a better video card.

      But that's just me.

    79. Re:Yes by galvitron · · Score: 1

      This. As long as you don't use the motherboard's DAC, you will get nice, clean digital sound with no interference. If you have an external receiver, motherboard sound is just as good as a discrete card. If you want to use the DAC in a computer, be prepared for a noisy environment.

    80. Re:Yes by eepok · · Score: 1

      Except "worse" implies something is already "bad".

      Best
      Better
      Good
      Less Good
      No Change
      Less Bad
      Bad
      Worse
      Worst

      If you won $53 million and the amount was suddenly reduced to $52.5 million, would you be "worse off" or "less well-off"?

    81. Re:Yes by Nalgas+D.+Lemur · · Score: 1

      In my experience, the only time it's worth having a discrete sound card is if you have a kick-ass set of headphones (or speaker setup). For the average $100 set of headphones/$400 speaker setup? Totally unecessary.

      That's largely true, but I'd disagree with the specific numbers. You can get headphones for under $100 that will easily demonstrate just how crappy a lot of on-board sound is. My cheapo speakers sound just fine (for what they are) hooked up to my various desktops or laptops over the past few years, but Grado SR60s or SR80s (~$70 and ~$100 respectively) plugged into the same systems have let me hear the entire range of hissing and weird electrical interference out there, to the point that it was more annoying to listen to stuff with them than the speakers despite them having (potentially) much better sound quality, at least until I got an external USB audio device to run them through.

      It's enough of a pain these days for me to get a quiet enough room for them to be worth using to listen to stuff that I don't bother very often anymore, though. The cheap speakers plugged straight into the on-board sound are good enough most of the time, or my Etymotics now that I have a desktop motherboard and laptop that both have decently non-noisy sound output. I'm just not nearly picky or rich enough to put more effort/money into it at the moment, because good enough is good enough. Heh.

    82. Re:Yes by metamatic · · Score: 1

      I've had much the same experience. My VIA Mini-ITX box has excellent audio output. My Macintosh, on the other hand, sounds like crap, so I have a USB audio box.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    83. Re:Yes by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1

      Buggerfuck. I meant to mod you Insightful and hit Redundant by mistake. Posting to undo. Have a nice reply telling you how insightful your comment was instead.
      H.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  2. Discrete sound card? by ElMiguel · · Score: 5, Funny

    As opposed to what? Continuous sound card?

    1. Re:Discrete sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      To be honest, I prefer my sound to be continuous. I tried playing left for dead with a flickering sound card, and let me tell you, *silence* *silence* *silence* *Roar of Tank right behind you* *silence* Not a good way to play. Don't even get me started on Voice Chat.

    2. Re:Discrete sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Integrated. Sorry for the derivative post, but maybe this will help differentiate the words.

    3. Re:Discrete sound card? by sjames · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, but sometimes I use the computer when others are sleeping. I need it to be discreet.

    4. Re:Discrete sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure, that's exactly what they mean... duh.

    5. Re:Discrete sound card? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Have you heard the difference between them? The discrete card puts out a cold, mechanical sound, while the continuous is warm, with an ambience and character unmatched.

    6. Re:Discrete sound card? by l0b0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Analog of course. They've got this new qbits that can have literally any value between 0 and 1!

    7. Re:Discrete sound card? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      As opposed to what? Continuous sound card?

      Not to rain on your attempt at humor, but "discrete" means "separate; distinct; disjunct". Discrete sets are called that because they're separate, not because they're not continuous, even if that is their most significant property. Anyway, I'm just happy that the submission didn't refer to a "discreet" sound card. :)

    8. Re:Discrete sound card? by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      My indiscrete sound card is always butting into my music with annoying ads and showing up to weddings drunk.

    9. Re:Discrete sound card? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Hence why it's referred to as discrete. There's a discontinuity where it plugs into the socket. As opposed to the integrated ones which are essentially continuous with the mainboard having no such disconnection. Perhaps it's a bit lame that only folks with a math background are going to appreciate.

  3. My Soundblaster 16 works great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's also got a SCSI port so I can attach my CD-ROM drive!

    1. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by armanox · · Score: 1

      Your SB16 came w/ SCSI? I feel ripped off - mine has an IDE Controller on it.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    2. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh yeah, need something to power this 2X CD-ROM drive. Now if I can just find my CD caddy so I can load it...

    3. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by MonTemplar · · Score: 1

      I actually remember both of those, *and* why you would need those particular solutions back in the day. (For those of you youngsters, PC motherboards prior to the mid-90s were not blessed with the on-board ports that are standard today...)

      -MT.

      --
      -MT.
    4. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by sjames · · Score: 1

      You got the better deal, they cleaned the controller for you.

    5. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I believe you're thinking of Media Vision. They sold a soundcard with a built-in SCSI port bundled with a 1X CD-ROM drive back in the early nineties.

      I tried various cards from Creative and Turtle Beach and always went back to the Media Vision card as being the most trouble-free. It stayed in my computer until ISA slots became unavailable.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by pLnCrZy · · Score: 1

      You kids and your newfangled toys! Be grateful!

      I remember hooking up my first 8-bit Pro AudioSpectrum card (with SCSI) and my original CD-ROM drive. That's 1X for you spoiled brats. I had a CD-ROM drive before they started marking them with speed multipliers!

      My 386 was the envy of all the kids in my neighborhood... especially after I maxed it out with 6MB of RAM. They marveled at the speed that Windows 3.1 loaded, and were astonished at the cutting-edge video with AUDIO when Wing Commander III came out.

      Good times, they were...

    7. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, Creative Labs made a Soundblaster 16 with a SCSI2 port.

    8. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      I had a CD-ROM drive before they started marking them with speed multipliers!

      I can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic, but I seem to recall that my brother had a CD-ROM drive that was labeled "single spin" which I assume is what we later referred to as 1x.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    9. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by IMightB · · Score: 1

      My first CDROM was SCSI.... Terminate dammit!

    10. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      UGH try running early Linux or FreeBSD to recognize that controller on that proprietary sound card.

    11. Re:My Soundblaster 16 works great by pLnCrZy · · Score: 1

      I wasn't being sarcastic at all.

      That first CD-ROM drive was simply marked "CD-ROM." It wasn't until they introduced faster drives (2x, etc.) that they started making the distinction on the slower 1x drives.

      I wish I had kept that stuff... I still have my old USR Courier modem, tank that it was. My old computers would have made a great nostalgic mini-museum.

  4. Does anyone still have soundcard? by Nukenbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think that I have put a sound card in a game rig in the past 5-8 years. Does anyone still use them besides people who have some some special need for them?

    1. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by armanox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When I bought my last desktop (2008) I noticed a huge drop in audio quality and volumes going from my SB Live! in my Pentium 4 box to the Realtek HD onboard in the new system. A year ago I added an SB Audigy to my C2D box I noticed a huge jump in the sound output - I didn't have to crank my speakers up to understand speech, recording quality went up, and I started to notice the difference in 128Kb/s vs 192Kb/s (especially on percussion).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    2. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by HermMunster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sound cards used to be sold because their ability to decode sound was done on the card rather than having the CPU doing it, which would slow down the gaming performance (somewhat). I'm sure that sound cards also have other features not found in on-board chipsets, but most of those are for things like high end gaming.

      About 7 years ago I remember getting an on-board NVIDIA chipset that had hardware decoding of mp3 files. The CPU utilization of the system without the hardware decoding the CPU jumped to about 45% continuous while playing back the mp3 file. On the rig with the NVIDIA chipset with hardware decoding the CPU utilization was nearly imperceptible. It became to expensive for NVIDIA to offer those for long so they replaced them with generic sound chipsets.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    3. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do. My open sennheiser headphone's just aren't loud enough otherwise.
      I can also tell integrated and dedicated sound cards apart. On certain netbooks, it's quite awful but most of the time it's good enough for me.

    4. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by jandrese · · Score: 4, Informative

      7 years ago a new system would have been built with a 1.8-2.3Ghz Athlon XP or a 2.5-3.5Ghz Pentium 4. If you managed to make an MP3 decode eat up 45% of the CPU with any of those chips, you were doing something horribly wrong.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    5. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      I might be the special need, but yes, I do. The reason is because I have my PC hooked into my entertainment center. The last time I bought a motherboard, I could not find one with the socket and memory type I wanted that also had a digital-output for the sound on the motherboard. I finally just picked up a used Turtle Beach off Amazon, and now I got surround from my computer again.

    6. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by vlm · · Score: 1

      About 7 years ago I remember getting an on-board NVIDIA chipset that had hardware decoding of mp3 files. The CPU utilization of the system without the hardware decoding the CPU jumped to about 45% continuous while playing back the mp3 file. On the rig with the NVIDIA chipset with hardware decoding the CPU utilization was nearly imperceptible. It became to expensive for NVIDIA to offer those for long so they replaced them with generic sound chipsets.

      I had a 486/66 DX that took darn near 100% CPU to play back. I distinctly remember Debian had a "special" compile of the mp3 decoder that was optimized for the 486DX or whatever you had at the time. I'm guessing 50% utilization would be a good achievement for a P75. P75 in late 2003? P75 was released in '94 so I'm guessing you are somewhat off in your recollection?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      My own machine still has audigy2 I bought long, long ago, and that has been in at least 2 other systems before. My parents, who usually get my "hand downs" use ancient SB live!

      Both machines have realtek on board audio, and even my father, who is not audiophile by any stretch noticed a difference in spite of using some crappy 50€ speaker+mic set on that machine after I put SB Live in (his words were something among the lines of "whatever you did to our computer, it sounds different. I like it more that way"). On my machine, I use logitech's Z5500 (http://www.logitech.com/en-us/speakers-audio/home-pc-speakers/devices/224) and frankly, realtek sounds utterly horrible even on mp3 playback.

      Playing games on realtek was just painful. Literally painful, subwoofer was outputting noticeable distortions even in WoW during the short period of it bugging out with creative cards about a year ago, forcing me to roll over to it.

      Point to case - buy a basic ~40€ sound card if you care about sound at all. You don't have to shell any more unless you're an audiophile - pretty much all bells and whistles are a waste.
      But a proper bulk sound card does make a magnificent difference even for a mid-end speaker setup. And in some cases, even with basic headphones.
      I'm not sure if it matter whether the card is from crative or asus at this point - both seem to support EAX, and with DX10 onwards losing DirectSound completely, there's just not much of a point in hardware audio in a consumer PC beyond the basic quality and post-processing.

    8. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Sound cards used to be sold because their ability to decode sound was done on the card rather than having the CPU doing it

      True, the CPU cannot decode sound, because it does not have a D/A converter. And getting a D/A converter was the reason you would put a sound card in a PC. Such stuff as decoding MP3 for sure wasn't part of the first sound cards. The most advanced sound cards may have had some midi stuff on the card as well.

      The quality of the D/A converter and everything in the chain after it can influence the quality of the sound. And I can believe onboard sound chips don't have the best quality.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    9. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CPU utilization of the system without the hardware decoding the CPU jumped to about 45% continuous while playing back the mp3 file.

      If that's the case, you were doing something seriously wrong. You should be seeing CPU usage like that if you've got a high end 486 or one of the first Pentium systems. By the time you hit the Pentium 2, CPU usage should've been near negligible.

    10. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Admiral_Grinder · · Score: 1

      I put a X-Fi in my computer in 2007 because it came with the live drive. It was nice to have front side audio ports (my speakers didn't have them, nor does my case support them). My solution before hand was to hook a headphone splitter in the back of my box, plug in both speakers and headphone extension and then use the windows interface to adjust/setup. With the X-Fi, I was able to plug my speakers like normal, but when I plugged in my headphones, the drivers would detect that and switch everything from 5.1 to headphones. It would also cut sound to the speakers when the headphones where plugged in. Great for LAN parties too.

      Kinda cool having a 1/4 inch input and output on it, I played my brothers guitar on it and played pretty good.

    11. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by hazydave · · Score: 1

      Must have been some evil slow CPU, or horribly coded MP3 decoder. Back in the late 90s, my company at the time had MP3 decoding, no hardware help, on a 90MHz ColdFire, with CPU left over. And that was only because the ColdFire lacked hardware floating point.

      The big reason for audio chips was MIDI Synthesis. A basic MIDI synthesizer usually has 32 independent voices; a good one will have hundreds. This was prohibitive to do in software back in the day, particularly when sound chips were on the ISA bus. Once they moved to PCI, software started to dominate. Ensoniq's AudioPCI, for example, did soft synthesis way back in the early 90s.

      The other things was standardization: Intel speced out the AC97 Audio CODEC standard, oddly enough back in 1997. This was both a register, pinout, and bus interface spec, which meant that it was fairly safe for motherboard vendors to put the DMA engine into a chipset, to drive just the audio CODEC. Of course, they didn't both building hardware synth engines into the chipset, though they certainly could have. With the CPU around to do the synthesis, these remained simple.

      Add-on sound is largely a specialty thing these days. Its important for recording, particularly if you want your PC/laptop to hook into real mics, not those craptastic electeret mics from Rat Shack. A good USB or Firewire interface will have 48V phantom power, much better preamps, more than two channels of input, much better power conditioning, etc.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    12. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      There's definitely something wrong with his setup, alright. I had 0.5% CPU usage for XMMS back in the day on an AMD K6-2.

    13. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Sound cards used to be sold because their ability to decode sound was done on the card rather than having the CPU doing it

      Precisely.

      The great power of the Atari, Commodore, and Amiga computers wasn't some amazing software, but they had 3-4 processors inside instead of just 1 (like PCs had). PC owners had to buy a separate GPU and SPU in order to get decent performance.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      I've got one I still use because I know it's foibles, I trust it a little more than whatever random stuff a mo-bo maker might have chosen, and I know it has good open-source drivers. It's over 10 years old, and has been in a variety of computers over the years, though. When it finally dies, I doubt I'll replace it, unless I'm setting up a media center or something.

    15. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      The only time I've ever done so is when the on board sound goes kaput. The PC I took into work has that very issue. 6 years later everything in it is running fine. Me having that PC there was supposed to be temporary since they didn't want to shell out the money for a PC for me (even though I needed one), so I brought in an old one I didn't use much which was better than anything they would have bought.

    16. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      The last Dell I bought (4 years ago) had awful integrated audio. Sure it was capable of 5.1 surround; but, it was corrupted by all kinds of artifacts. I could hear noise (buzzing and clicking superimposed on the audio, associated with disk accesses and apparently from the USB bus, I was not alone as there were discussions about the poor audio quality on various sites, including the Dell customer support portal.

      I put a sound card in the machine to get clean sound.

    17. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Sound cards used to be sold because their ability to decode sound was done on the card rather than having the CPU doing it, which would slow down the gaming performance (somewhat).

      Ahhh, marketing at its finest hour. You need to buy a $500 3d card AND a $100 audio card to play this $49 game!

    18. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by nxtw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I bought my last desktop (2008) I noticed a huge drop in audio quality and volumes going from my SB Live! in my Pentium 4 box to the Realtek HD onboard in the new system. A year ago I added an SB Audigy to my C2D box I noticed a huge jump in the sound output - I didn't have to crank my speakers up to understand speech, recording quality went up, and I started to notice the difference in 128Kb/s vs 192Kb/s (especially on percussion).

      I have used many systems with integrated audio, mostly with Realtek codecs, and have never had any of the problems you describe... except when using Linux and ALSA. Things were fine when using OSS4, Mac OS X, or Windows.

    19. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      To the several people who mention that 45% is far too high a CPU usage: I'd have thought the answer simple: Remember the two most popular mp3 players of the time (WMP and Winamp) both enabled some form of visualisation by default. Those fancy graphics would easily explain the high CPU usage.

    20. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Starting with Vista and Windows 7, audio acceleration was dropped as DirectSound3D is no longer available for those OSes. Unless of course, you're using a wrapper such as Open AL that will convert the DS3D commands over to it.

      As to why it was dropped, MS felt that most of BSOD issues were caused by audio hardware in the past. Now they wanted to remove it far from the kernel as possible. Besides, you'll have plenty of CPU cores in the future. So that's the idea anyways. Which is funny because now they heavily use the GPU which is just prone to its own set of issues. I seriously doubt OS stability was the issue here in nixing DirectSound3D. But, whatever...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    21. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I'm about to put one in.

      I'm tired of the Realtek POS drivers crashing.

    22. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      That sounds about right. I remember CPU load being around 33% on my P100 when decoding MP3 files.

    23. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Bobfrankly1 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that I have put a sound card in a game rig in the past 5-8 years. Does anyone still use them besides people who have some some special need for them?

      A cheap discrete sound card is one way to extend the gaming life of an outdated system. When your system is starting to lag, depending on the game, taking the load of sound processing off of the cpu can be just enough to make a game playable. Same thing goes for high resolution video playback.
      However, it's only a band-aid, and the requirements of new software will outrun your aging hardware usually within the following year.

    24. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by fl00ders · · Score: 1

      He meant ENcode, surely?

    25. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by aiht · · Score: 1

      Damn, my 486 running Slackware couldn't decode mp3s in real time. Maybe I should have been using Debian?
      I used to pre-decode songs to wav and I'd still have to make them mono, because my HD couldn't do 2-channel 44KHz 16bit in real-time either.
      Ah, those were the days...

    26. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Sounds like either a bad driver or a defective part. I haven't had any trouble of that sort with my soundcard. It's probably the same chipset that yours had. right now I've got the volume turned up only about a third of the way and I'm hearing things just fine.

      The other possibility is that it's your speakers. Some speakers require more power than others to drive them.

    27. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still use my old Soundblaster Live! that I bought sometime in the late 90's. It's STILL to this day superior to any built-in sound chip I have tried, and I have tried several times during these years to exclude the Live! frrom my new builds. Always end up putting it back in after just a few hours. Not only is sound quality / volume much better, but it seems most built-in cards STILL lack hardware mixing. Having a card with hardware mixing has made sound in Linux much much easier over the years. Never had a problem with sound in Linux in fact, even back when a lot of people complained about issues. The only problems were when the card was brand new and it took a few months for Creative to release Linux drivers.

    28. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Sound cards used to be sold because their ability to decode sound was done on the card rather than having the CPU doing it, which would slow down the gaming performance (somewhat).

      Ahhh, marketing at its finest hour. You need to buy a $500 3d card AND a $100 audio card to play this $49 game!

      Yeah, pretty crazy! You need to buy a PS3 [$599 for the high end when they came out] and a flat screen TV [$799!] just to enjoy a $59.99 game.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    29. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont think audio quality is a special need.

      at least i hope not.

    30. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't explain the drop to almost zero CPU usage when using a hardware decoder, unless said decoder automatically disabled the visualizations.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    31. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      So have creative or asus released specs or open linux drivers yet? I'll stick to my integrated yet crappy card if it can at least make noises...

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    32. Re:Does anyone still have soundcard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but surely you had that 486/66 in 1992? What MP3 decoder was available then? Please learn to use an appropriate CPU for your current epoch.

  5. Yes, yes I do. by Hatta · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was plagued with choppy audio under W7 until I disabled my Realtek sound chip and got a Turtle Beach PCI card. Actually, IIRC, CoD4 refused to run at all with Realtek. Never had a problem with it under Linux though. Of course, YMMV.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Yes, yes I do. by sjames · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a driver issue. Of course the only way you could avoid the crappy closed source driver was to get different hardware, so your solution was the only one available.

    2. Re:Yes, yes I do. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I have a Realtek built-in card in my HP Envy 15, and it plays every game I throw at it with no complaints whatsoever.

      Probably a driver issue.

    3. Re:Yes, yes I do. by n17ikh · · Score: 1

      The COD4 thing isn't really a driver problem, it's a problem with COD4's shitty coding. It expects a microphone to be connected, and some sound card drivers provide a "stereo mix" input which is always active that it attaches to. Others do not and so you need a microphone plugged in to make the game not crash on startup. Thanks, Activision!

      --
      Hard work pays off tomorrow, but procrastination pays off NOW!
  6. That Depends by sexconker · · Score: 0

    Do you like having support for the latest version of EAX? If so, you need a Creative card.

    Do you like the bundled crapware that other cards throw at you? If so, buy one of those.

    Do you need specific ports to hook up a MIDI device, or perhaps use S/PDIF optical out at the same time as whatever port they stick it behind on your motherboard? Try and hunt down the port expander bracket accessory shown on the back of your motherboard's box. Fail to find it, then buy a Turtlebeach card.

    Otherwise, stick with plugging in your monitor's built-in speakers into the green port, no, the GREEN port, on the back of your computer.

    1. Re:That Depends by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Hey! When not using my headphones, I use the speakers built into my monitor, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:That Depends by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Hey! When not using my headphones, I use the speakers built into my monitor, you insensitive clod!

      Output to my monitor's speakers doesn't even pass through my soundcard... unless it does so prior to sending it to my video card, which then sends it out to my monitor via HDMI.

      Then again, I don't use my monitor's speakers unless I want to independently control the volume on it; normally I use my surround system connected to the computer's sound outputs.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    3. Re:That Depends by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Most of the time, I use my ATH-AD700s, but when I want to show people a youtube video or if I'm gaming and watching a movie, I'll just use the speakers built into the monitor. My main monitor is an Asus VH236H (secondary is a Dell 2005FPW). I gotta say, considering they are just speakers built into the back of a monitor, the VH236H has some decent built-ins. They are tinny and devoid of bass, just like any built-in speaker on a budget monitor...but I'm constantly surprised by the amount of detail that manages to come through.

      Space concerns and volume are the only reasons I do it. Curse you, 3rd floor apartment!

    4. Re:That Depends by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Desktop? Laptop? My understanding is that HDMI (OMFG what are you doing with one of those pieces of crap?) runs through the sound card, then into the video card.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:That Depends by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Desktop? Laptop?

      Desktop.

      OMFG what are you doing with one of those pieces of crap?

      It's the only digital input on this monitor. Its inputs are literally 1xHDMI, 1xVGA, and 1xStereo sound.

      My understanding is that HDMI... runs through the sound card, then into the video card.

      Except that my old video card (a nVidia 8600GT with HDMI out) didn't output sound to HDMI. It wasn't until I upgraded to a nVidia GT 240 that I can now output sound to the monitor.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    6. Re:That Depends by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Maybe on some devices? But on my laptop, the HDMI audio out appears as a dedicated sound device. Effectively I have two sound cards. Sometimes I have to disable the actual sound device in order to make the HDMI become the consistant default.

  7. Re:Phirst phoast by hansamurai · · Score: 1

    Agreed, when my friends and I started podcasting with multiple people we found ourselves looking into audio cards at Newegg for the first time in a decade.

  8. i can hear clearly now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the mother(board) is gone

  9. That depends. by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only if what you listen to requires discretion.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:That depends. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I need a sound card that checks to make sure there are no children in the room before playing Ce Lo's latest hit

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  10. Well... by CSFFlame · · Score: 4, Informative

    I would like it point out that a good card lets you recieve certain inputs that a normal card would not, such as both coax and optical SPDIF. I also would say that much of the audio quality comes from the DACs and Sampling rate conversion.

    1. Re:Well... by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My motherboard has optical SPDIF in and I'd never use a DAC in the PC environment, it's just too noisy. If you need high quality DAC you need to do it in a breakout box so you're either looking at a midlevel USB/Firewire card or a high level PCI(e) card. As to sample rate conversion does SB still incorrectly do automatically upscale on incoming SPDIF?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Well... by pz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My motherboard has optical SPDIF in and I'd never use a DAC in the PC environment, it's just too noisy.

      I used to think the same thing too. Amazingly enough, you can engineer your way around the noise and create a very good sound card, at least from my informal experience with a handful of different cards. That said, most motherboard solutions (including laptop versions, unfortunately) are nearly worthless because of the price optimization pressure.

      Some years ago, I had an undergraduate student design an audio I/O card for a research computer we were developing. She did a remarkably good job. Despite being buried in the middle of an environment with a fair bit of electrical noise, the card produced quite good sound that was essentially as quiet as it would be as if it were in a separate enclosure. She had proper power supply and ground isolation, local re-regulation, and ran all signal traces on internal layers with ground/power planes on the external faces of the PCB. Worked great.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I have an old Audigy 2 ZS Platinum. It came with a front panel full of inputs. I use all of them for various device...everything from my guitar amp to my dreamcast is plugged into my PC. No onboard audio has multiple SPDIF inputs and outputs (optical and co-axial) as well as 1/4" inputs, MIDI, and then some.

    4. Re:Well... by afidel · · Score: 1

      I guess it's possible, I just never got acceptable results with any of the prosumer cards I tried until I started using external break out boxes which was either a very high end feature for internal cards or available on midrange external cards so the choice to use the external all in one boxes was a no brainer for me =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit199 · · Score: 0
      the integrated sound on my motherboard from 2006 has both coax and optical SPDIF inputs and outputs... i don't use them... instead i have a digi 002 connected via high speed firewire to reduce and normalize latency.

      having audio signals processed by a machine that is also handling other tasks round-robin is ignorantly misguided. add-on the electrical noise in the computer case and it gets even worse. you need a breakout box or your recordings will be orders of magnitude of lower quality. i'm not sure if people don't understand this, or don't care.

    6. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit198 · · Score: 0, Troll

      and what was the latency on the signal? all that local re-regulation doesn't come free.

    7. Re:Well... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      OK, everyone's talking about the noise produced inside a PC, but what in a PC is going to have noise at audible frequecnies? The clock speed is WAY higher than than a CD's Nyquist limit, let alone human hearing.

      You might get noise from poorly shielded cables pucking up AC hum, but not inside the computer.

    8. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit198 · · Score: 0

      i had that same card... i tried to use it for recording from a roland 909 because it claimed it was "24/96 compliant" but what's really going on is the audigy 2 samples the 24 bit signals and immediately converts them to 16 bit for all on-card processing and then converts it back to 24 bit for output. i got unacceptable results and upgraded to a digi 002 using pro tools and haven't looked back in over 10 years.

    9. Re:Well... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      My motherboard has onboard Optical and coax Spdif in and out.

    10. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      OK, everyone's talking about the noise produced inside a PC, but what in a PC is going to have noise at audible frequecnies?

      You don't need noise at audible frequencies, you only need noise that produces unwanted harmonics at audible frequences.

      EMI, for one, introduces all kinds of artifacts. Have you ever held your mobile phone near a powered speaker? Did you hear the crackling/popping noise coming from it? Yet, your phone communicates at 900MHz or above, which by your reasoning should be inaudible. High-resolution DACs are very sensitive to electrical interference. Such interference usually does not mean co-resonance (where the device oscillates with the same frequency as the noise source), but more often "beating".

      In the same vein, there are plenty of devices inside a PC that impact the stability of the power supply voltage rails. Small wrinkles on the power rail might again cause DAC inaccuracy, but of more importance is its impact on signal timing: a power surge (or dip) will affect the slew rate of transistors, which can cause inaccuracies in the timing of signals.

      In how many ways this can affect music reproduction is up for debate. But usually the second form of interference (jitter) causes much more audible problems than the first.

    11. Re:Well... by hazydave · · Score: 1

      It's possible. Back in the old days, there were good and bad. Most of the early Soundblasters were terribly noisy -- they just didn't care. The Advance Gravis Ultra Max, the first real sample-based sound card, suffered from a bad power coupling... I did some hacks to mine to improve it.

      It got better... the Turtle Beach Tahiti was very quiet, the Ensoniq AudioPCI (at least the version before Creative Labs bought them) was also quite good. In both cases, these were companies with experience doing professional audio systems (TB had a dedicated PC DAW system, Ensoniq made keyboards).

      I designed a multimedia-centric PowerPC system ("PIOS One") back in the short days of the CHRP standard, which had great detail given to keeping the audio system isolated from the generic PC power supply issues. It also had a digital audio expansion port, proprietary in those days. The Mac Clone was put to death before this shipped.

      So yeah, it's possible. But it's hit or miss, on any given motherboard.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    12. Re:Well... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I also would say that much of the audio quality comes from the DACs and Sampling rate conversion.

      The difference in DAC outputs has been essentially indistinguishable by the human ear for at least the last ten years.
      Opamps, on the other hand, still have a pretty wide variation.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    13. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, nice job and all that. But what were her breasts like?

    14. Re:Well... by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

      Interesting! Are there internal (i.e., living inside the computer case) sound cards available for purchase that are as good as the one you are talking about? What would you recommend if I were to go out and buy a sound card today for recording use (say 4 or 8 channels) - internal or external? Any particular models or types you would recommend or warn against?

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    15. Re:Well... by CSFFlame · · Score: 1

      You're correct, it's the opamps I was thinking of, I remember doing some reading up on them when I was reading about soundcards and technical papers 5 years ago when I was bored.

    16. Re:Well... by pz · · Score: 1

      and what was the latency on the signal? all that local re-regulation doesn't come free.

      Sorry, what? Exactly how do you propose that local re-regulation of the power supply affects the latency of a signal being processed by analog circuitry fed by that supply? (Hint: It's irrelevant for all but the most esoteric designs that combine the amplifier and the power regulator into one stage, and even then we're talking about audio-scale latencies, a/k/a phase responses.) Not sure how the parent comment got moderated "+1 Interesting".

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    17. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit198 · · Score: 0
      i'm not sorry at all that you failed to provide the latency values i requested, and instead tried to confuse the issue.

      you claim you have a card that processes audio... you claim to understand how to calculate the signal latency... what is it?

      what is the latency on the monitor signal while recording at the same time? is it even possible?

      i'm not sure how "shield it more" was moderated as "+1 interesting" and not "-14 duh, but the latency hit makes it unusable in any real world applications"

    18. Re:Well... by Woodmeister · · Score: 2, Informative
      _Real-time_analog_circuitry_ has "NO LATENCY"[1].

      [1]The closest thing you have to latency in these circuits is slew-rate, which is measured in volts per _nano_seconds. There are also the phase shift/distortions that the GP mentions, but the truth is these are practically impossible for humans to perceive in any real sense. 'specially for audio frequencies and circuits that aren't garbage.

      --

      Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
      -Possum Lodge Motto
    19. Re:Well... by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      As to sample rate conversion does SB still incorrectly do automatically upscale on incoming SPDIF?

      The X-Fi (EMU20k based cards) no longer has the fixed 48khz sample clock the Live/Audigy (EMU10k) cards had.

    20. Re:Well... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      No such thing, that would violate laws of physics. You can make it indistinguishable from real time like you're implying, but as soon as you start actually processing it you introduce latency. Probably not a lot, but you do introduce it, to say otherwise is really uninformed.

    21. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit193 · · Score: 0
      considering we're talking about an audio card intended for digital to analog and analog to digital conversion, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANALOG CIRCUITRY. you're an idiot.

      now tell me the latency values i've requested, or continue your attempt to confuse the issue... you're completely pathetic.

      do you refuse to provide the numbers because they are laughably unusable for any real world application?

      i want to listen to one track while recording another... what is the latency between when the signal is sent by the operating system of the host controller and when the sound is heard through the headphones? what is the latency between when sound is picked up by the microphone and when it is available to the operating system of the host controller?

      quoting analog signal physics while discussion digital devices = +3 informative.

      slashdot = stagnated

    22. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit193 · · Score: 0
      the most valid question to be asked of a claimed product breakthrough = troll.

      slashdot = stagnated

    23. Re:Well... by afidel · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is it wasn't the EMU10k that was the problem (that chip got used in plenty of beautiful products like the Korg Triton series of workstations) but the butchery that was the rest of the card. Glad to hear that the X-Fi corrected that stupid problem.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    24. Re:Well... by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the tricks we had to pull having an 5Kw AM transmitter about five feet from the broadcast studio. Balanced audio with a good shield (grounded on only one end) is your friend. Making the old Harris automation for the FM side, with 1970's era TTL circuits behave in a 8 volt RF field was another issue (adding pull-up resistors to most inputs.)

      She really understands electrical fields and, no doubt, will be a great engineer.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    25. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit193 · · Score: 0
      i am a human measured in _micro_grams... 99,790,321,400 micrograms.

      you're an idiot.

    26. Re:Well... by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      You bet. It's pretty much only the DAC. There are more or less three types of DACs used in anything from synthesizers over DJ-style CD-players to soundcards. They differ in quality and price and IIRC they're all manufactured by crystal. You will drastically hear the difference when performing at the club with a laptop/external audio and the DJ hands over the controls. Common professional CD decks (say "Pioneer") against whatever DAC you have. To my experience sound cards for $250 and more are mostly equivalent in loundess, presence and linearity. Cheaper ones might be OK but will almost always need more gain and some fiddling with the EQ. Hint: Don't even think of connecting an internal audio card to even a small PA or your set will not even last two minutes.

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    27. Re:Well... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Looks like the memento troll forgot yet another password...

    28. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesting! i'm an electronic engineering student and seeing well designed circuits always makes me smile :) I'm sorry you got trolled by the kind of guy that thinks that blowing money on Denon "Ultra Premium" Ethernet cables would produce any measurable improvement XD.

    29. Re:Well... by pz · · Score: 1

      i'm not sorry at all that you failed to provide the latency values i requested, and instead tried to confuse the issue.

      you claim you have a card that processes audio... you claim to understand how to calculate the signal latency... what is it?

      what is the latency on the monitor signal while recording at the same time? is it even possible?

      i'm not sure how "shield it more" was moderated as "+1 interesting" and not "-14 duh, but the latency hit makes it unusable in any real world applications"

      I don't have the figures, sorry. On the digital side, it was as you would expect for a digital processing chip, since we used a standard one. Unfortunately, since we're talking about nearly 20 years ago now, I don't recall which it was. On the analog side, it was by design effectively zero for the analog-bandwidth signals (yes, the circuitry likely had some group delay, but we're talking about analog signals here where delays are sub-microsecond).

      Local re-regulation of power supplies is fundamentally an analog process, as is eliminating interference from a noisy environment (even when you use digital techniques, the underlying mechanisms and approaches are analog). Proper grounding and power supply isolation techniques are fundamentally an analog process. Although shielding is at the root of nearly all passive noise suppression, that's not the only thing that is done.

      I'll ask again: Please explain why you think re-regulating the power supply will induce latency on the signal.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    30. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit165 · · Score: 0
      i said it doesn't come free... as nothing does. you cannot remove the electromagnetic interference from the environment... re-regulating the power only eliminates interference from the power source.

      the issue is that for real world applications, a layered solution is required with a separate controller and buffered memory stages to minimize round trip latency sufficiently.

      your solution is similar to something like the delorean... solving the issue of rust with stainless steel, but in doing so, making the car too heavy.

    31. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me, you also believe Denon's $500 ethernet cable improves signal over traditional Cat6 STP (or even Cat5e UTP)?

    32. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit212 · · Score: 0
      tell me, you don't spend much time recording or mastering audio? i'm sure your mp3s are playing just fine off your onboard audio chips. you and your grandma both probably couldn't tell the difference.

      you're an idiot.

      why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

      you're completely pathetic.

    33. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you're an idiot.
      Coming from the guy who asks about latency figures on an analog circuit.

    34. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit211 · · Score: 1
      AN AUDIO INTERFACE CARD WITH ANALOG TO DIGITAL, AND DIGITAL TO ANALOG CONVERTERS IS NOT AN ANALOG CIRCUIT.

      you're an ignorant hypocrite.

      why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

      you're completely pathetic.

      not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps not caps

    35. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so desperate about it? are you a pathetic guy that has nothing better to do i his life than post retarded messages on the internet? It's sad...

    36. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit210 · · Score: 1
      you're the one responding to me, moron. with no account to notify of a response, you must be helplessly refreshing pages hoping for a continued conversation.

      like you, i have many better things to do... OBVIOUSLY. i, however, take responsibility for my comments while you ignorantly condemn those comments while hypocritically taking no such responsibility.

      ur mum's face is desperately sad.

      why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

      you're completely pathetic.

      refresh some more, feeb.

    37. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr T says you should treat mothers with respect, don't you dare to oppose him.

    38. Re:Well... by MichaelKristopeit210 · · Score: 1
      i opponents only those who demand it. you're an idiot. why do you speak on behalf of others who have not requested it of you? why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

      you're completely pathetic.

    39. Re:Well... by cynyr · · Score: 1

      is your motherboard a useful* form factor?

      *Useful: uatx, mini-itx or smaller?

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  11. No by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't.

    But I don't do anything that revolves around audio.

    Of course 99.5% of the people who claim to be audiophiles and claim they can 'tell the difference' don't need one either. Its just a different type of epenis.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:No by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've gone through various cards and I can definitely tell a difference between grades. The gold shielded $1000 cables are bullshit; but an obscenely thin aluminum cable will destroy sound and video quality (there are truly shit products out there), and the solution to that is a $12 RCA cable (audio/video/stereo) instead of the chinese crap that came with your game system.

      A low-end SB Live! or SB Audigy card, however, works wonderfully. The Emu10k1 chipset in the audigy clearly provides a higher grade than a Yamaha card (the YMF724 chipset is horrible, I've had 3 and the lowest grade one would play 128kbit/s MP3s sounding like 16kbit/s by some ungodly magic), and in a less dramatic fashion provides a clear improvement over an on-board AC97 Via or Realtek. It's to the point that they both sound fine; but if you listen to both you'll pick it up easy, and if you're used to one or the other then switching will generate a shocking "wow that's good" or "wow that's bad" reaction.

      One thing that surprised me was when I switched to using my Motorola Cliq (shitty phone) for an MP3 player. I figured it would have the same (or worse) sound quality as my 64 gig iPod, but when I plugged the headphones (that I was using for the iPod) into it I was immediately surprised by the massive improvement in sound quality. There was a less dramatic difference between the iPod video and USB-stick (i.e. 512M) Shuffle; the Shuffle was vaguely better, but not much.

      It's there. It's not game-setting, but it's there.

    2. Re:No by DarthBart · · Score: 2, Funny

      I put my PC into a wooden case so the bits would properly resonate before being sent to the speakers.

    3. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes it seems like non-audiophiles spend more effort justifying their non-purchases than audiophiles spend justifying their purchases.

    4. Re:No by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gold shield? I've never seen any cable that used anything for the shield other than either aluminum foil (with a drain wire) or a braided copper or silver shield. Even the expensive cables almost invariably use copper in one form or another. Gold is a poor conductor and would make an awful shield. It's only used to coat connectors because it doesn't oxidize.

      Cheap cables can degrade the sound, mostly by having too small a wire gauge for the main conductor. Thus, on average, judging cables by their diameter tends to result in a better metric for sound quality than any other factor you could pick....

      Regarding the Motorola phone versus an iPod, that's probably an impedance matching issue. Different pieces of hardware are optimized for driving headphones with different impedance ratings. If the headphones have too low an impedance, you'll load the output down too much and sound quality will suffer. This suggests that the Motorola phone probably has lower output impedance. If you used a pair of higher impedance headphones, you probably wouldn't hear much, if any difference between the same two devices. (Either that or you have an EQ setting set wrong on your iPod.)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:No by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Cheap cables can degrade the sound, mostly by having too small a wire gauge for the main conductor. Thus, on average, judging cables by their diameter tends to result in a better metric for sound quality than any other factor you could pick....

      Yes exactly. Of course you could buy $120 Monster cables that are just $12 thick cables with a gold plated connector... I doubt they're even really shielded, at best with braided aluminum.

    6. Re:No by aitikin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because, "If you can't hear it, your ears just aren't good enough!" can be a valid rationalization for a lot of things in the audio world, so audiophiles think it's a valid rationalization for everything, from the difference between $10 speakers and $10,000 speakers (definitely noticeable) to their $300 power cables that had a Tesla Coil shot through it (and yes there are companies that sell those) to the $3 cable you buy at ratshack (definitely not existent).

      Unlike audiophiles, non-audiophiles don't have a giant price tag that they can associate with their justifications.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    7. Re:No by Rinnon · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't.

      But I don't do anything that revolves around audio.

      Of course 99.5% of the people who claim to be audiophiles and claim they can 'tell the difference' don't need one either. Its just a different type of epenis.

      What's it called when you belittle a group of enthusiasts who are interested in something that you admit to knowing almost absolutely nothing about? Still epenis or is that something different entirely?

      I'm not an audiophile, but I don't have to be to find your telling people what they can or cannot "tell" to be pretty damn ignorant. You either seem to think that A) They cannot tell the difference and are lying/tricking themselves or B) There is a difference but it is so minute that it is not worth fussing over. If A, then who are you to tell someone what they can or cannot hear? If you're seriously trying to claim that you know better than they do what they are hearing, you're an idiot. If B, then who are you to tell someone what is important and what is not? Just because their priorities are different than yours doesn't make you right.

      The fact that you got modded to 5:Insightful is what really irks me. It's that "I haven't put any effort into learning about this topic, but I'm going to belittle it from the sidelines" attitude, followed by the rest of the community nodding with conviction right along side you that pisses me off.

    8. Re:No by Physics+Dude · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... Gold is a poor conductor ...

      Gold is a superior conductor to aluminum and not much worse than copper. I'm guessing its cost has more to do with aluminum winning out on low end shielding. :)

    9. Re:No by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      You are correct: you do not need a discreet sound card. I haven't had a discrete sound card in the last few computers I've bought or built or the past several years and games and everything sounded just fine. Every motherboard I've bought since 2004 supported 7.1 channels like the 2004 MSI K8T Neo2 Socket 939 motherboard

      The article confirms this: "That brings me to the question we posed at the beginning of this review, which is whether you really need a sound card at all. The simple answer is no. You can get by with integrated audio and live blissfully unaware of what you're missing or stubbornly claim that no difference exists."

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    10. Re:No by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Of course 99.5% of the people who claim to be audiophiles and claim they can 'tell the difference' don't need one either

      I bought one of those X-Fi cards and intended to return it if I didn't like it.

      Doing some benchmarks in WoW (which I still played at the time) found a 5-10fps increase.

      Playing with the advanced audio settings, I was able to get a noticeably better sound quality out of it. I can tell just by listening to my music if it's running in entertainment (more audio filters) or game (faster) mode, and click it over to the one I want.

    11. Re:No by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >The Emu10k1 chipset

      Yes, extremely good. In fact, this chip pretty much defines the moment when the output quality of the consumer sound card reached the point of "at or beyond the threshold of human perception." As long as the rest of the circuit (e.g., preamp) is good, these cards are, in a very real and measurable sense, equivalent to professional devices at the same sample rate and dynamic range capability.

      It's unfortunate that the original SBLive didn't come in a package with balanced 1/4" I/O, or in a 4-channel ADC or greater configuration. The SBLive with aftermarket drivers (either ALSA or kX) was wonderful for the time, and at least in the 16 bit dynamic range world, holds up well to this day. It's nice for use as a musical instrument, because you can get these things for $5/each, they can work at well under 10ms latency, and they are pretty damn good for both input and output.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    12. Re:No by spinkham · · Score: 1

      For under $200 you can have awesome sound.
      My choice for a value setup is Grado SR80i headphones and a NuForce uDAC2 combo USB DAC and headphone amp. The "L-cush" pads are a recomended upgrade, or you can try the "sock mod"

      Yes, you can get better sound from a system that sells for the price of a car but ~$200 gets you sound that is probably better then you've ever heard, and exceeds the quality of the source material most people listen to.

      I use my grados with an external powered subwoofer when I want to shake the house, but usually they're fine by themselves..

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    13. Re:No by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I guess I had just remembered it being worse than it actually is. "Poor" is probably too strong a word. It's half again higher resistance per meter than copper or silver, so relative to copper or silver, it is a poor conductor. It's all relative, of course---they're both measured in double-digit nanoohms per meter, compared with... say carbon, which starts at two orders of magnitude more resistance and goes up from there. (Then again, we normally call carbon an insulator.) And even aluminum (at almost double the resistance of silver or copper) is still quite a bit better conductor than the tin and lead often used in solder. :-)

      The point I was trying to make is that there are much, much cheaper metals that are significantly better as a shield/drain (copper, silver), and even cheaper metals that are almost as good (aluminum). A braided gold shield would cost a fortune (thousands of dollars per meter) and still wouldn't be as good as braided copper.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    14. Re:No by hedwards · · Score: 1

      They must have a small one if they can use an SPDIF socket.

    15. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people who say "No" have no idea what quality sound actually sounds like. I forced a friend to buy a set of In-ear Monitors (~$30) and the quality improvement blew his mind!

      READ the frequency response of headphones before you buy them! Anything outside the 20-20Khz range is plain garbage.

    16. Re:No by Alarindris · · Score: 1

      Right on. It all depends on what you want to use it for. For anything other than audio recording, an on-board card is just fine.

      If you want to build a recording studio or record your band, you MUST get a separate card. After recording 16 tracks that 60Hz hum and other line noise from your power supply and other random interference really adds up. A decent sound card makes a HUGE difference.

      Also as a side note: yes, don't buy Monster speaker cables, there is no difference. However, if you are a musician, their XLR and 1/4 in. cables cost twice as much as a cheapo but have a LIFETIME guarantee. I've spent about $100 on all my Monster cables (for a bass rig) and I'll never have to buy another one.

    17. Re:No by aitikin · · Score: 1

      If you really want to hear the best sound of your life, look into the Legacy stuff (hear them at trade shows such as CES). I listened to things on those I've listened to on Sennheiser 650s and PMC studio monitors and never heard before. They're amazing speakers, built by a great guy (met him in person a couple of times).

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    18. Re:No by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      You'll find the weirdest things in special shops targeted at the audio-esoteric community. Mostly extremely costly and completely useless. There's, however, one good reason for gold-shielded connectors: they are completely immune against oxydation and almost immune against dirt.

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    19. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on the contrary, gold is an excellent conductor

    20. Re:No by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Regarding the Motorola vs. Apple, it is also possible that Apple invested in crappy DACs, secure in the knowledge that almost no-one does blind tests of DACs and most people therefore wouldn't know of the difference anyway.

      I've always used Cowon players for my portable needs, a brand known for using good-to-great DACs, and the difference with an iPod is shocking, in my experience.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    21. Re:No by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      All of Creative's products are utter garbage, the X-Fi is no exception.

      Those audio filters you mention just mess up the sound quality with cheap effects, the "crystalizer" being the absolute worst of them, Creative even had the audacity (har har) to claim that it could make a 128kbit MP3 sound better than a CD. Not to mention that the total harmonic distortion and frequency response of the card itself is crappy at best. Since EAX was abolished and games started doing their own audio processing in software, Creative's offerings have been absolutely worthless.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    22. Re:No by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>All of Creative's products are utter garbage, the X-Fi is no exception.

      The X-Fi is far better than the built-in audio that comes on a mobo. Out of curiosity, what do you use?

      >>Those audio filters you mention just mess up the sound quality with cheap effects, the "crystalizer" being the absolute worst of them

      The crystalizer ruins most music, but does help improve sound quality a bit at the lower settings (~20%). At values > 30% it makes things like cymbals way too harsh and shrill.

      I primarily bought it for the framerate advantage, though.

    23. Re:No by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      The X-Fi is far better than the built-in audio that comes on a mobo. Out of curiosity, what do you use?

      An M-Audio USB audio adapter, fed into my stereo and either to a set of full-size speakers or to my headphones. To be fair, I use my PC for almost all my media needs, games, music, TV, movies etc. since replacing my old CRT TV and DVD player with a digital TV tuner and a sexy widescreen monitor. The USB adapter probably burns a few more CPU cycles than a PCI model, but it's never been a problem so far.

      I'm probably going to go for a PCI audio adapter in the near future to reduce the cable mess a bit, I just haven't decided which one to go for yet. Probably one of those Xonar cards or something from M-Audio again.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  12. Poor Quality Sound - Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem: poor sound quality out of your motherboard supplied audio...
    Solution: return your defective motherboard.

  13. Ghost Recon by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Years ago, I got Ghost Recon for Christmas. I had all the minimum specs of the game - and most of the recommended - but one thing never mentioned was a sound card. Now, for normal singleplayer gameplay there was almost never an issue. However, when playing online, where there could be anywhere from 16 to 32 sounds going at once, my game would slow to a screeching hault for the length of the gunfight - essentially making me useless online. I couldn't even play the support class because a full auto-machine gun tended to slow things down a bit, so I never went anything but the sniper and would always run to the flanks to try and avoid my game from hearing any sounds besides my own shots. Had to disable music and some ambient effects just to get that going.

    Since then, now that I'm older and I can afford things on my own - I've never gotten a computer for gaming without a soundcard. I never want to be in that situation again, and I figure dedicated hardware was the way to go (like a good Graphics card helps with the display of things obviously, so I naturally assume a sound-card provides the same assistance with audio).

    Now - whether that's still the case, could I go and grab the latest game, meet minimum specs, and have audio cause lag? I don't know. If so, I think soundcards are still necessary. Especially for the EAX effects and such.

    1. Re:Ghost Recon by dunezone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Back in the day a decent sound card would have its own on-board processor. This processor would take over the work of processing sound and relieve the burden from the actual CPU of the machine which was needed for other critical activities same concept as a GPU. Sounds to me the processing of the sound was different from single-player to multiplayer, maybe there was extra over head to process where the sounds were coming from within the environment. That extra overhead was put your CPU over the edge. Of course disabling the sound helped your game play. But today with multi-core processing and fast processors this is less of a concern and doesn't create the bottle neck like it used to. Heck, we might be seeing CPU/GPU combos on the same chip in the near future, I believe AMD and ATI were working on that?

    2. Re:Ghost Recon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and it also comes down to the fact you are simply offloading all the sound processing from the CPU to a discerete sound card. All that audio processing could easily be 30% of a P4, so adding a sound card essentially will give you a theoretical 30% boost in performance. That is not to mention the higher quality audio and special EAX effects from sound cards that make the game sound amazing.

    3. Re:Ghost Recon by nightmareci · · Score: 1

      Yep. The name's pretty obvious too. ( http://fusion.amd.com/ )

    4. Re:Ghost Recon by nxtw · · Score: 1

      Heck, we might be seeing CPU/GPU combos on the same chip in the near future, I believe AMD and ATI were working on that?

      Intel has had this in production since the beginning of the year, but it's not quite the same as what happened with audio; the GPU is included on the same chip as the CPU, but the CPU and GPU are still independent. The combination provides performance and power benefits, with the memory controller, CPU, and GPU all integrated into the processor.

    5. Re:Ghost Recon by Narishma · · Score: 1

      You should be aware that games have long (roughly from the start of this current console generation) stopped supporting accelerated sound and started doing it all in software on the CPU. Mostly because it wasn't supported anymore in Vista (and 7) but also because CPUs have become powerful enough to do it without slowing down other things. So discrete sound cards are only useful (in the gaming world) for playing old games that supported stuff like EAX effects.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    6. Re:Ghost Recon by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      You just used the words 'Intel', 'GPU', and 'performance' in the same post. Clearly, you have gone wrong somewhere.

    7. Re:Ghost Recon by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Many new graphics cards that utilize HDMI actually have audio controllers integrated into them. On my HTPC, I used to require a discrete soundcard that did realtime encoding of lossy 5.1 digital formats (DTS-Connect, DDL). Last year I removed the soundcard and since then my ATI/AMD Radeon 5450 feeds 7.1 digital lossless audio to my receiver via the same cable that carries video. It has a Realtek audio controller onboard and all audio is routed through the Realtek/AMD HDMI audio driver. It not only supports 24bit/192 KHz LPCM, but also bitstreams the HD-audio formats from blu-rays (DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD). I believe that nvidia's Geforce 400-series supports bitstreaming as well. As long as you're doing HDMI-only (as there are no DACs on graphics card), the video card should be adequate for sound.

      Can't comment on gaming performance- 5450 is inadequate for gaming at 1920x1080. For games, I use a different PC (w/ a Radeon 5850) with a dedicated Creative X-Fi titanium connected to headphones.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    8. Re:Ghost Recon by TraumaER · · Score: 1

      I believe AMD and ATI were working on that?

      Got that right! I've also heard tale of the APU. I think Intel might be coming out with one as well, but as far as I know AMD is the first. Here's a link to site with some information on it. http://sites.amd.com/us/fusion/apu/Pages/fusion.aspx

    9. Re:Ghost Recon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But today with multi-core processing and fast processors this is less of a concern and doesn't create the bottle neck like it used to."

      Maybe with the onset of quad-core chips or better this has been more diminished, but I've run multi-CPU since the roughly the time of the P200. My 2.8Ghz dual Xeon cored machine most definitely suffered horribly without a quality sound card. I went from the SB16 to an Audigy 2 on it and that helped a good deal, but games like Battlefield 2 would still freeze the system whenever an arty strike or heavy combat was going on. Once I replaced it with the X-Fi things were silky smooth. Sound was, and most likely still can be, a serious bottleneck on a lot of machines. I have yet to find an onboard audio solution that satisfies me. Then again, I also don't rely on craptastic little speakers from Dell or the local Walmart. My output goes right to the 7.1 receiver.

      Anyone who says Creative's audio drivers are crap - you're still right, but the sound overall is awesome. If only they could get quality bass level output on the discrete output.

      I am, however, somewhat thankful that the newer boards with them have the full optical in and out, because if the card ever fries I've got a passable fallback option.

    10. Re:Ghost Recon by Dare978Devil · · Score: 1

      Except games haven't used EAX in years. When is the last time you saw a game advertised with EAX? 2005? 2006?

  14. Educate yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Asus'

    Asus's

    I like Mr. Jones.

    I am going to Mr. Jones's house to meet his wife.

    It's hard keeping up with the Joneses.

    The Joneses' house is quite pretty.

    Do you get it yet?

    1. Re:Educate yourselves by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, it is not necessary to use an additional "s" to form a possesive with words that end with an "s" sound. Several sources say that it is prefered, however I find that it is more readable without the additional "s".

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Educate yourselves by Cinder6 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, the Chicago Manual of Style allows " Asus' " as an alternative to "Asus's". Just make sure to be consistent.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    3. Re:Educate yourselves by residieu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I prefer language to be understandable in both its written and spoken forms. Asus' may show the possessive form when written down, but spoken you lose that information. Asus's is clearly possessive in both written and spoken form. I also think Asus's looks better.

    4. Re:Educate yourselves by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I prefer language to be understandable in both its written and spoken forms.

      It is, but that's why we have separate dialects for speech and for writing. There's no need to compensate for the weaknesses of one in the dialect used for the other.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    5. Re:Educate yourselves by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Nope, unless they chaned things since I was in grade school (granted, I started 3rd grade 50 years ago when "gay" meant "happy and carefree") any posessive ending in an S gets the apostrophe after the S.

      However, they do seem to change the rules once in a while.

    6. Re:Educate yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Asus' looks more sophistimicated.

    7. Re:Educate yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. The Chicago Manual Of Style is guilty of becoming complacent in order to meet people half-way. How can using "Asus'" be consistent when it implies a plural posessive of the proper name Asu?

      The reason english is one of the hardest languages to learn is because we cannot bother to follow even the simplest rules. In two hundred years, let us assume the word "Asus" is meaningless, the possessive "Asus's" will denote the proper name with no ambiguity, the term "Asus'" will at best be ambiguous, and at worse, be misinterpreted as I have stated above. If writing is to have any merit, it is to withstand the ravages of time. Let's try our best to help it do so.

    8. Re:Educate yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use the Turabian style guide, you insensitive clod!

    9. Re:Educate yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chicago Manual of Style

      Step away from the keyboard, anyone who cites the Chicago Manual may also be verbally fluent and un-awkward enough to be mistaken for other than a basement-dwelling techno-weenie, which is mandatory for all upvoted Slashdot comments.

      I assume the book either starts spinning in-place when you browse Slashdot, or does it just get hot to the touch?

      Back to our regular programming, already in progress...

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of discrete sounds cards! I could have 35.1999 channels of really surround sound!

      No! No!! In Soviet Russia the sounds cards cluster you!

    10. Re:Educate yourselves by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Chicago Manual of Style allows " Asus' " as an alternative to "Asus's". Just make sure to be consistent.

      Let me fix that for you:

      Actually, the Chicago Manual of S'tyle allows' " As'us' " as' an alternative to "As'us's'". Jus't make s'ure to be cons'is'tent.

      Now that's' cons'is'tent! Whoo-hoo - gonna get me 100% on my next Englis'h es's'ay for s'ure! Thanks' S'las'dot!

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    11. Re:Educate yourselves by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      It is, but that's why we have separate dialects for speech and for writing.

      Huh? Since when? Written English and spoken English are the same. The existence of creoles, pidgins and patois not withstanding.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    12. Re:Educate yourselves by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Chicago Manual of S'tyle allows' " As'us' " as' an alternative to "As'us's'". Jus't make s'ure to be cons'is'tent.

      Now that's' cons'is'tent! Whoo-hoo - gonna get me 100% on my next Englis'h es's'ay for s'ure! Thanks' S'las'dot!

      Are you writing a fantasy novel or something?

    13. Re:Educate yourselves by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Record yourself speaking. Transcribe it. Then compare that to something you have written. If you don't notice the difference you are either remarkably eloquent or shockingly illiterate.

    14. Re:Educate yourselves by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Ah but "Asus's" is a proper name itself. I named my dog that, and I'm always losing poor Asus's' leash.

      How can using "Asus'" be consistent when it implies a plural posessive of the proper name Asu?

      Kind of like "as" implies a plural of the article "a"? Or "his" implies plural "hi"?
      And on that note I guess atlas is just the plural of atla?
      Context can usually see you through, and I'm not overly worried about all those poor Asus being mistaken for Asus.

      English has bigger ambiguity problems than where the apostrophe goes:

      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo.

    15. Re:Educate yourselves by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is not necessary to use an additional "s" to form a possesive with words that end with an "s" sound. Several sources say that it is prefered, however I find that it is more readable without the additional "s".

      For the non-grammar-Nazis out there, I think it's worth tossing into this discussion a brief descriptive account of how possessive marking works in English (i.e., in real, spoken English, not in the crappy conventional orthographic renderings thereof).

      In English, a noun consists of an obligatory stem and an optional inflectional ending. So, for example, in the word dogs, dog- is the stem, and -s is the inflectional ending—which in this case serves as a plural marker. Other examples:

      • In the word dog, we have just the stem and no ending.
      • In the words man and men, we also have just a stem and no ending. Man is an irregular noun that forms its plural by using a different stem, not by adding an ending.
      • In the words lease, wuss and Asus, we also have no ending, but with one interesting fact that'll become relevant in a bit: these words have stems that end on an s or z sound.

      So, some rules now:

      1. Nouns with irregular plurals have their own rules for plural formation, which are not listed here.
      2. You form the (regular) plural or possessive of a noun with a stem that ends in a s or z sound by adding an ending that sounds like -uz: leases, the lease's end, wusses, the wuss's friend, the analyst predicted that Acme and Beta will be the next Asuses, Asus's advantages over its competitors. (Don't put too much stock on the orthography; actually pronounce these and listen to how the words are pronounced.)
      3. For words that end on a voiceless consonant, you add an -s sound at the end: cats, the cat's whiskers.
      4. For other words, you add a -z ending at the end (written as s): dogs, Joe's.
      5. You can only have one inflectional ending marker on a noun. A regular nouns that's simultaneously marked for plural and possessive gets only one marker: the wusses' friends.
      6. Irregular nouns that don't use the -s ending for the plural can still use it for possessive: all of those men's possessions.

        So, the orthographic rule that renders as wuss's the possessive-marked singular noun is the one that most closely accords with the rules of English grammar.

    16. Re:Educate yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for the anal-ysis

    17. Re:Educate yourselves by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not really necessary, the words are pronounced the same whether you add the extra "s" or not. It's like the word "creek" depending upon where you are, that might be pronounced creek or crick. Same spelling different pronunciation. Likewise Hiccough and Hiccup are apparently pronounced the same way despite being spelled differently.

      The point being that it's really just a waste of a millisecond adding it on, when it means and is read precisely the same way.

    18. Re:Educate yourselves by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      What about homophones? To, two, too? They're, their, there? The meaning of these words* in written English is well defined because they are spelled differently, yet in spoken English their meaning can only be inferred from context as they sound the same. There are also words spelled the same but with different pronunciations (e.g. desert, bow).

      *I realise they're is a contraction, not a word, but you get the idea.

      What about abbreviations? How do you pronounce Mr., for example?

      What about dollar values? If I gave you $2, would you give me "dollars two"?

    19. Re:Educate yourselves by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Record yourself speaking. Transcribe it. Then compare that to something you have written. If you don't notice the difference you are either remarkably eloquent or shockingly illiterate.

      That's not something as extreme as a different dialect, its just simpler construction + slang + pause words.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    20. Re:Educate yourselves by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Fucking elves....

    21. Re:Educate yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think they are pronounced differently?

  15. THE NOISES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Integrating the sound card on to the MoBo isn't always a great idea. These cheaper motherboards, like Biostars etc. with onboard sound, they did not engineer the sound to isolate from the rest of the board. You can hear the bootup noises, like the CPU counting the ram and the hard drive ticking, over the speakers. I had mine hooked up to a 1000W system, and damn, you could hear the whole POST like some sort of symphony. It was more amazing than the windows startup sound.

    1. Re:THE NOISES by gnapster · · Score: 1

      That sounds epic. I'm sorry I missed it!

  16. It really is obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people who say that there's no difference between a Realtek chip and a dedicated sound processor have either not actually tried a side-by-side comparison, or they have crap OEM speakers that degrade both sound cards to the output of the speaker, and/or they are using highly compressed audio as the sound source, and not realizing that the output quality is being limited by the format.

    This is fueled by the fact that most people honestly don't care that much about sound quality, and if that means saving $30 or $300, good for them. But "I don't care" is a very different claim than "there's no difference".

    Apathy is an attitude, not a metric.

    1. Re:It really is obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be obvious, but is it important? I can accept that I could probably get better quality audio out of my computer (or out of my portable audio player), but what I have is perfectly enjoyable. I don't NEED to spend more to get higher quality equipment. Since the article asks "Oh, and do I really need a sound card?", apathy IS an important factor.

    2. Re:It really is obvious. by keatonguy · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, we get it, your audiophile sensibilities are so much more refined than our plebian ears. But if the average listener can plug into a 30 dollar card and a 300 dollar monstrosity and not hear any difference, isn't the person not sensatized to tiny imperfections in sound output getting the better deal here?

      --
      If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
    3. Re:It really is obvious. by pspahn · · Score: 1

      When random adolescents were asked, "Is apathy and ignorance the biggest problem among American teenagers?" the typical response was, "I don't know, and I don't care."

      Much like the onboard sound on my system (and I do have a decent set of Klipsch speakers from 8 years ago or so) I really don't give a crap what sound device I'm using. The last time I bought a dedicated sound device, I bought one of those cool Creative external devices for something like $80. It lasted a little over a year before it mysteriously stopped working.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    4. Re:It really is obvious. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I have this mobo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131274
      This is a decently high end motherboard for when it was released, but it comes with a Realtek style onboard sound with a breakout board that plus into a special slot. I had to cease using it, the 60 cycle hum was so bad that you could barely hear the audio over it. This is what happens with the majority of these onboard cards, unless you have decent speakers hooked to it, you probably wouldn't be able to tell, but hook up some headphones, or even a cheap set of speakers with an actual amp, and you will be able to tell the difference. I am not an audiophile, I have worked in the sound industry, but will be the first to admit that my hearing isn't great anymore. Try it for yourself, go buy a discrete sound card at your favorite big box and try it out, if you don't think it makes a difference, it is possible that you have a decent onboard sound card, they are rare, but they happen. No loss if you want to return the card, but don't slam others because you haven't tried, it takes no audiophile to hear the difference.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:It really is obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you don't get it.

      My point was that A) I am not an audiophile, B) even I, a layman, can easily tell the difference between Realtek and a Soundblaster. In other words,

      It really is obvious.

      People who think it isn't obvious merely haven't tried. Anyone who does something as basic as listening to music is doing themselves a disservice by *assuming* that the Realtek is "close enough" to a real sound card. Maybe it is. But at least try it out for yourselves and actually make the comparison instead of just following the groupthink.

    6. Re:It really is obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. YOU don't get it. We don't care if there's a difference. We're happy with our shitty cheap equipment.

  17. Sometimes Yes You Do by sanjacguy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have a MB with a built in RealTek sound 'card'. I also run Windows XP 64, cause I'm crazy. The RealTek system for XP 64 is notoriously unstable. When I played Champions Online, the game would disable the sound because it could and would crash the program. Borderlands took it the other route - you can run the program, but you will always crash when you hit level 10, due to the special level 'ding' sound for level 10. Solution? Get a sound card, or a new OS.

    1. Re:Sometimes Yes You Do by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Isn't that a driver problem though? I mean a lot of companies have released drivers which nominally supported 64-bits but didn't work correctly. Not really a particularly good criteria to judge need based on.

      Well, apart from realtek more or less having that market locked up.

    2. Re:Sometimes Yes You Do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the chipset is so generic you can download 3rd party drivers and fix the solution that way. I'm not a windows user so i can't say that with certainty, but on other OS' drivers there is no problem. If the open source solution is fine, shouldn't there be a 3rd party windows solution, as well?

    3. Re:Sometimes Yes You Do by sanjacguy · · Score: 1

      Hence why 'Sometimes'

    4. Re:Sometimes Yes You Do by sanjacguy · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing - I could spend another 6 hours troubleshooting the new 3rd party driver, or finding it, only to be in the same spot I'm at now. Or I could nip out to the local retailer, buy a card, slap it in, download and install drivers for it, and I know that'll work. The question is how much money is my time worth? Hence why the title of the post is 'Sometimes Yes You Do'.

  18. Realtek? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    Realtek's sound chips / drivers don't play nice with a few games I enjoy, namely NWN1 & other Aurora Engine games.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  19. Revealing indeed by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    Asus' $30 Xonar DG and its considerably more expensive $280 Xense cousin. Everything from gaming performance to signal quality is explored, and it's the blind listening tests that prove most revealing.

    They reveal the authors insistence on going into excruciating detail on everything. Maybe his attention to detail makes him a better audio engineer/evaluator, but honestly we would have been fine with "The subjects preferred X card for Y music by a substantial margin"...

    1. Re:Revealing indeed by cryoknight · · Score: 0

      It's that attention to detail that makes him an audiophile.
      Otherwise he'd be one of those people that was fine with onboard audio.

      It's all about the finer details.

  20. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Funny

    As opposed to what? Continuous sound card?

    You know, do you need a sound card that doesn't let your roommate or neighbor know that you listen to porn all day?

    --
    My work here is dung.
  21. I do, but no need for big spending. by Happy+Nuclear+Death · · Score: 1

    I'm still using an Audigy 2 ZS I purchased in 2004. My 2007-ish motherboard sound device is turned off in BIOS. Why? Two reasons:

    1) Motherboard sound is full of noise and glitches (pops and clicks).

    2) Even more importantly: The onboard sound hardware *actively interferes* with sound under Linux. I have to turn it off, or I have mysterious and disruptive sound problems. Such as fmod using 100% of CPU cycles.

    I can only speculate on the real cause of #2, but if experience is any guide, it's due to half-baked hardware that only "works" with a Windows-only driver.

    This is why I put "works" in quotes: Even when integrated sound hardware works under Windows, it doesn't necessarily work all that well. I bought the Sound Blaster because the integrated audio on the PC I built in 2003 was also flaky.

    The Audigy 2 ZS works absolutely fine under Ubuntu, so that's what I use. Yes... ... I have zero problems with this card and PulseAudio. But the onboard sound device is a piece of junk. Motherboard manufacturers throw in the cheapest junk they think they can get away with. They certainly don't give a damn whether it works in Linux.

    1. Re:I do, but no need for big spending. by keatonguy · · Score: 1

      I have been using multiple distributions of linux for years on all variety of onboard sound cards and not one of them has ever caused the things you posted. Just to offer a counterexample.

      --
      If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
    2. Re:I do, but no need for big spending. by makomk · · Score: 1

      The Audigy 2 ZS works absolutely fine under Ubuntu, so that's what I use.

      I didn't even know any of the relatively recent Creative Labs cards had Linux drivers. Last I heard, getting them to work was essentially impossible, whereas motherboard audio worked out the box on nearly all systems.

    3. Re:I do, but no need for big spending. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >I'm still using an Audigy 2 ZS

      The guts of your Audigy include a circuit that compares very favorably with many professional devices on both input and output. The preamp for mic input isn't very good, but the line input is, and if you use an external preamp with a good mic (which is the only serious option anyway) you can get very, very good results. By "very, very good" I mean that this device introduces coloration below the threshold of human perception. As for output, it has a digital output circuit that will produce results that are precisely equivalent to the SP/DIF output on any professional audio device. (The only difference is that a pro device will have an option for an external clock to eliminate jitter, but sync is not an issue with one single device.)

      It's also no small consideration that your Audigy works under ALSA because the EMU corporation was progressive enough to provide the team with very good specs and even participated in the process. Those pros with their Lynxes and their Unicorns can't even play in this world. (And when they [we] do, it's often with SB and M-Audio cards, which work perfectly fine, thanks to those manufacturers.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  22. Re:Phirst phoast by Stregano · · Score: 1

    My Gigabyte MB has integrated Dolby Digital 7.1 Surround sound. I don't need to drop another $280 for sound unless I am getting more speakers

    --
    The world is how you make it
  23. Largely depends on your speakers by thewils · · Score: 1

    If you buy a set of not-too-expensive surround speakers (I have the Edifier 501s - a bargain at $150 a few years ago) then you should go for a discrete soundcard imho. If you're just going to pipe the sound through a couple of $5 speakers, then don't bother.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:Largely depends on your speakers by MichaelKristopeit165 · · Score: 0
      it just as largely depends on the signal source... a similar "blind listening test" claimed "people" preferred mp3 encoded sources over raw samples.

      if your audio I/O interface isn't outside of the electrical storm going on inside your computer's case, you're doing it wrong.

    2. Re:Largely depends on your speakers by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      This. My last 3 systems all have had integrated audio and a SB Live! and no matter how I tried to record speech with a Microphone, there was always a significant level of noise (and not just white noise.. low frequency hum as well)

      Every since I picked up a USB headset that acts as a sound card, no more noise when recording, and I mean not even a little bit. Silence is flatline even when amped up.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Largely depends on your speakers by MichaelKristopeit198 · · Score: 0
      what microphones were you using? were you using external pre-amps?

      i got to acceptably clean recording on a sound blaster audigy card with a r0de nt2 condenser mic hooked up to a pre-amp with phantom power... quickly realized i needed something like a digi002, bought one, and i've been impressed with it ever since.

    4. Re:Largely depends on your speakers by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      If your source material, the rest of your signal chain, and your listening environment don't make for a reasonable test case, you shouldn't be making value judgments about sound quality in the first place.

      To make a car analogy, it's like looking at the moderate-to-high end performance tires, dismissing their value for the vehicles for which they are relevant or necessary, because you drive a 1975 VW Rabbit.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Largely depends on your speakers by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >This. My last 3 systems all have had integrated audio and a SB Live! and no matter how I tried to record speech with a Microphone, there was always a significant level of noise (and not just white noise..
      >low frequency hum as well)

      The preamp was definitely the weak link. It's extremely hard to put a decent preamp into the same circuit as the mobo.

      Some of those USB headsets turn out to be pretty amazing. To get any kind of results with a mic and a SBLive (mobo or not) you need a dedicated preamp and a decent mic. This is mostly true for any consumer sound card. The preamps just aren't that good, and there really aren't any electret mics that are worth using to begin with. But even at the bottom of the barrel, say the preamp on a Behringer mixer or one of the one- or two-channel M-Audio preamps, and a cheap Chinese condenser mic or an SM58 (or clone), depends on your style what kind of mic you use, these will give good enough results for production work, in all seriousness.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  24. Vinyl by drumcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People like vinyl better than digital audio sometimes. This isn't new. Leave discrete cards to us professionals and audiophiles. You iPod earbud wearing types, feel free to use integrated stuff. It's much better than it used to be. It's not external, but anymore it doesn't need to be. It's "good enough". Why is this a debate?

    1. Re:Vinyl by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Vinyl is strictly worse than any semi-modern solution when technical merits are concerned. The only reason you can have vinyls that sound better is because of the bastard recording industry and their loudness war.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Vinyl by radish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or because people prefer the sound of vinyl, coloration and all. You can measure the performance of a medium and determine which is the most neutral (or the "best" from a technical pov), but that doesn't always equate to the one which people think sounds "best" to their ears. I get into this a lot with audio fans who say that their $xxxx gear sounds "better" than something much cheaper, despite the test results saying the cheaper one is as good or better from a transparency pov - our ears don't always like transparent (tube amps are great evidence of that!).

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    3. Re:Vinyl by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      If you have two audio systems, and one has significantly more fidelity than the other, you can process the sound to emulate the artifacts of the weaker system with no perceivable difference.

      Of course, PRICE does not mean quality -- not with loads of gear that don't stand to blind hearing tests and outright scams like Monster Cable.

      That tube amps you mention -- their only upside is that they fail more nicely at the point of clipping, starting to lose gain before the cap so the transition isn't that abrupt. You can of course easily emulate that with newer gear or in software. And the whole exercise is moot -- if any clipping occurs, any quality is already lost. Of course, the music industry doesn't care here.

      That the technically better system can be used wrongly -- and often is -- does mean you should use worse ones just because they can't be misused this way.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:Vinyl by izomiac · · Score: 1

      IIRC there was a study a few years back that showed that teens prefered 128 Kbit MP3s over lossless audio formats or vinyl records, while senior citizens preferred the vinyls. I suspect the next generation will prefer lossless, as there's really very little reason to have easily audible compression artifacts nowadays.

    5. Re:Vinyl by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not just. Sometimes it's just a preference for a certain type of sound. My old vinyl copy of Genesis Foxtrot sounds miles better than the SACD not because of the loudness or the dynamic range, but because the SACD was mastered with treble cranked out the wazoo. It's this fetish of "detail" that pushes recordings today to sound so thin just so the audio idiots can hear the high pitched reverberation of someone moving their fingers up the guitar strings rather than the actual music itself.

      Any medium is ultimately a slave to the mastering regardless of its technical specs.

    6. Re:Vinyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sampled all of my vinyl, first in 16 bit and then later when I got a 24 bit card. A good 24 bit sample really captures all of the nuance, it's amazing. To be sure it wasn't my something else, I recorded a few songs in 16 bit on the same config and it's night and day.

    7. Re:Vinyl by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Some people enjoy the *experience* of vinyl, if not making judgments on the *sound*. There are some arguments to be made with respect to the EQ curve of vinyl mastering. If you can get your hands on the source material and make your own mix, you can impart the same qualities of sound into the digital domain.

      But that's not always the issue, anyway.

      There's the aesthetics of having a wall of phono albums. And then there's the process of selecting one. It even has a *smell*. Then there's the ritual of preparing the tonearm, cleaning and de-ionizing the record, and playing it while your girlfriend rolls a joint on the album cover, which is a nice, big work of art (the cover is, also).

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    8. Re:Vinyl by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      It's surprising how much aesthetic value lives in the dynamic headroom. People focus too much on frequency characteristics that are already at or beyond the threshold of human perception, but dynamic range turns out to be far more important. And music of the 60s, 70s, and 80s was originally mixed to maximize dynamics. The same music has had its dynamic domain significantly altered to exploit the limits of digital media, because doing anything else causes quiet parts to be lost, relatively speaking. Mostly, the loudness wars have been an accident.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:Vinyl by radish · · Score: 1

      If you have two audio systems, and one has significantly more fidelity than the other, you can process the sound to emulate the artifacts of the weaker system with no perceivable difference.

      Theoretically, maybe. Simulating analogue devices in the digital domain is still very far from an exact science. Example - a lot of music producers still use analogue compressors/filters etc rather than their VST cousins because they prefer the sound. The VST is a simulation and is inherently imperfect (just as a digitally sampled waveform is not the same as the original analogue). Over time they'll get closer, and are already interchangeable in many cases - but not quite all yet.

      Of course, PRICE does not mean quality -- not with loads of gear that don't stand to blind hearing tests and outright scams like Monster Cable

      Well of course :) And the placebo effect/buyers remorse play no small part in these discussions, but there are cases where I'm willing to believe there is an audible difference - for example between two different but similarly spec'd DACs. My position is that once you've established there is a difference (through blind testing), which is "better" is really down the the listener's preference. There's no point me spending thousands to get the ultimate transparent system if I don't like to listen to it.

      That tube amps you mention -- their only upside is that they fail more nicely at the point of clipping, starting to lose gain before the cap so the transition isn't that abrupt. You can of course easily emulate that with newer gear or in software. And the whole exercise is moot -- if any clipping occurs, any quality is already lost. Of course, the music industry doesn't care here.

      Well that and there's a distinct color added to the sound. You probably don't consider that an upside, but I know people who do. They would call a traditional amp "cold" while you and I would call it "accurate" :) On the clipping front, my understanding is that tubes help when your amp is clipping, which just means it's turned up too loud. Clipping the original recording isn't helped by tubes or anything else. Having said that, I did see some software which claimed to be able to apply filters to try and restore clipped peaks. No idea how well it works...

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    10. Re:Vinyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wanted to add that on clipping during recording, analogue recording mediums always perform better than digital. You cannot run hot signals into a pro tools studio and hope for a 'musical' recording. Running hot signals through an analogue desk and onto tape on the other hand give you significant overhead when it comes to high gain signals as tape saturates harmonically. Which is why the best studios in the world still use analogue desks and analogue recording media.

    11. Re:Vinyl by andyr86 · · Score: 1

      I think this is mostly due to psycho-acoustic effects. Loudness is king these days and most teenagers are used to music that has been amstered incredibly loudly. This isn't set to change, it is a diliberate abuse of the way we hear by the industry. Highly compressed, loud mastering produces greater physiological effects than nicely balanced music with significant dynamic range. Sadly this is why many studies say that the current generation will lose their hearing at an earlier age than their parents. Simply due to highly compressed music not allowing the auditory hair cells space to react to different frequencies and levels.

    12. Re:Vinyl by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      That all sounds fine until you are asked to list the specific colorations that vinyl adds that anyone might find pleasing. Could if be wow and flutter? Terrible channel separation? Pops and clicks? Raunchy frequency response? Compressed bass? Lousy dynamic range? Just what is it?

      I would say you "get into this" from a point of ignorance.

    13. Re:Vinyl by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      That's hardly an endorsement of the medium, is it?

    14. Re:Vinyl by hedwards · · Score: 1

      People who say that don't generally know what they're talking about. The problem is that when you push the sample rate high enough the effect is indistinguishable from continuous. The other problem is that the quality of the equipment that people are using negates any benefit that might be there. Even a $50 pair of Sennheiser over the ears is likely going to exceed the quality that a lot of the commodity hardware is putting out. And that's not even the expensive stuff like Grados.

      Most of that ends up being a combination of confirmation bias and the placebo effect. Under the conditions that people normally listen to music under, there is no advantage to vinyl and quite a few disadvantages due to the format.

    15. Re:Vinyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This much is true. For years I would download vinyl scene rips, or singles, instead of the actual retail CD rips, because the vinyl ones actually sounded better.

      It isn't a matter of vinyl actually sounding better, but more that years ago the recording industry didn't fuck with vinyls. Today, they do, so it is pointless. Heck, they screw up singles sometimes.

      I'm not an 'audiophile' but if I can hear the difference on my $20 headphones, then I'm sure others can too.

    16. Re:Vinyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, record CDs with the sound of vinyl.

    17. Re:Vinyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave discrete cards to us professionals and audiophiles

      Oh, give me a break. "Vinyl" vs "digital" has nothing more to do with "professionals" or "audiophiles" any more than does spending huge amounts of money on your equipment. And given your snide condescending tone I am guessing you are one of *those* :professionals"...

    18. Re:Vinyl by horli · · Score: 1

      Real live acustic is way to complex and poorly understood to measure and reproduce it accuratly. It's a matter of fact that no $xxxx gear sound hifi equipment can beat to sound of an A string on a real guitar. Just try.

    19. Re:Vinyl by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As long as marketing departments exist the medium won't be fully endorsed. There do however exist a few companies out there that exist purely for the love of music who do wonderful things with modern mediums. Companies like Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs and Chesky Audio. But you'll be hard pressed finding modern pop/rock in those finely mastered collections.

  25. Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I remember in times gone by, a proper review of a video card would involve scoping the output and looking at the quality of the signal. Likewise with the soundcards, it's so hard to find any real info on them other than 'surround' and 'supports windows'.

    I have a m audio delta 2940 PCI card I bought on ebay and hooking it up to my Tripath 2020 amp with fostex full rangers literally (figuratively) blew me away. The quality of the output compared to the rear output on the SBLive (kx drivers) was night and day. Amazing. I got it to do some digitisation of old audio recordings.

    Does anybody have any quantitive measurements of the Apri 2010 Mac book pro As i'm interested in doing some recording with that wondered how good a quality I'm likely to get.

    1. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by MichaelKristopeit199 · · Score: 0

      you should get a low latency breakout box with multi-track software to do recording... or were you just planning on hitting record on the mic-in and assembling all the tracks manually?

    2. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1
      Well it's really just for conversion of vinyl and tapes etc, perhaps some guitar/mic recording. Quality is probably good enough to be honest, but I was interested in seeing some measurements to back it up.

      A USB breakout box is desired as it means I can use a higher quality offboard DAC for playback, as the analog sound out the mac is OK, it's nothing amazing imo.

    3. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      Actually, TFA did have scoped measurements (granted it was through a loopback into another input, so was subject to the quality of the ADCs on the inputs), so you could at least see how the various cards performed against each other.
      Frequency response (the onboads dropped off completely at/around 20kHz), noise levels, hamonics, and stereo crosstalk were all plotted for the three cards in the test.

    4. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that's the case, since you didn't mention owning any monster cable perched on ceramic stands, or having used the proper denon directional digital link ethernet cable ...

    5. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by MichaelKristopeit198 · · Score: 0
      i have technic 1200 turn tables with ortofon needles hooked into a digi002 for high fidelity vinyl rips. you'd be much better off paying someone like me to do your transfers than building your own solution. it would be cheaper and you'd get near perfect results.

      guitar and mic into a mixing board into a line-in or mic-in would certainly work, but you can't master it, or tweak just the guitar or just the mic...

      something as simple as an mbox would make things much easier for you and produce significantly better results.

    6. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Frequency response (the onboads dropped off completely at/around 20kHz), noise levels, hamonics, and stereo crosstalk were all plotted for the three cards in the test.

      Its a rare adult that can hear 20khz frequencies anyways.

      On this test, the best I can hear is 15kHz

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are literally abusing the word 'literally'.

    8. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody have any quantitive measurements of the Apri 2010 Mac book pro As i'm interested in doing some recording with that wondered how good a quality I'm likely to get.

      Good enough!

      I started buying Macs because you never know what you're getting with other vendors. With a typical PC, 1:1 audio transformers solve any grounding issues but the power supply is usually unshielded and spewing RF noise into the analogue stage. I've yet to encounter an intel based Mac that exhibits either of these problems.

      I very much doubt anybody could differentiate (blind listening test) between a recording done using the onboard MacBook chipset and high end external A/D. I've never used the onboard microphone preamplifier and wouldn't expect much anyway. Grab a duet if that's a requirement.

    9. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I can hear past 16kHz, not sure about the limits of my current environment though.

      But the online pregnancy test on that page told me I may be pregnant, which I think might be incredibly dangerous for a man my age!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      Did you ever think it might be your sound card?

      I've always been able to hear high pitches no one else could, like the whine of a CRT high voltage.

      Now I fail all those high frequency tests and I have been wondering if it is my real tech audio that crashes when ever there is high CPU usage.

      With this story I will add a sound card and will have to retest.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    11. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by adolf · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you mention noise.

      I was doing some light pro-audio stuff with my Dell notebook, and noticed noise on the output. So, the next time out I brought along a USB sound adapter and got exactly the same noise.

      Then, I noticed that the noise was completely gone when running on battery and not plugged into the wall.

      The cause? Ground loops. Somehow, even with things grounded sanely (and tied to the same outlet), I'd always get ground loops. No matter where, or what - if there was another ground reference in the system (an amplifier with a grounded power cord, say), the Dell machine produces noise.

      Since then, I always isolate the ground on the machine (generally with a "2-prong adapter") when doing this sort of work, and it's as quiet as could be. Transformers would have also done the trick and would be a bit safer...

    12. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have an SBpro sound card (actually, I still do, its in the old computer), but the new box has audio on the motherboard. I hook up the front speakers to an el-cheapo set of Labtec speakers, and the rear two to a car audio amp, (with car audio speakers, powered by a 12v power supply designed to power a portable cooler (reverse the power connector to use the cooler to instead keep food warm)). It puts out really great sound, and its cheap, and as loud as you want. I haven't put it on a scope or spectrum analyser to check is frequency response, nor do I care to know what it is. Sound reproduction is 'fine'. I also read the article. I stopped when buddy started talking about digital speakers. You know all speakers are analogue, right? You know your ears (the protrusions on the side of your head) are analogue, right? They kinda work together that way. When I get a 24 pin implant on the side of my head, you can talk about digital speakers all you like. About 30 years ago, when compact discs came out, people (stereo salesmen) talked a lot about 'digital ready'. Anything labelled 'digital ready' cost about $50 more than things not 'digital ready'. There is no scientific difference, just an economic one. Its much like "MONSTER CABLEZ" for HDMI video. MONSTER(TM)(R)(C) costs about $250. The salesmen claim "oh, teh best teh best, nothing else will do". Where I live, an electrical engineer (actually a PhD) performed a test comparing $250 cables against $20 cables. Both had the same frequency response as you might imagine. Picture quality was the same, even though the gold wasn't plated on the ends of the cheap cables (oh my!). The difference was "MONSTER" was gouging, and the other guys weren't. The guys without PhD's. but with something to sell disagreed a WHOLE LOT! I like my cheap speakers, and thanks for reading.

    13. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by adolf · · Score: 1

      What year are you trolling from, exactly?

      And is your time machine available for rent?

      Also: I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    14. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by rtega · · Score: 1

      Considering the Macbook pros: I don't know for sure, but since apple's tendency to put in cheaper hardware I think you can better look for one of the edirol devices to record instead of using your onboard apple device. I'm using the digital audio output of my macbook because the analog output isn't really good (if you have ears, a good amplifier and good speakers) and I've been told that the pro's don't have much better onboard. I wouldn't bet on it for anything near professional.

    15. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You simply got older.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    16. Re:Where are the 'real' reviews of peripherals by m85476585 · · Score: 1

      I have an 08 MBP and the audio quality sucks. The noise level is very high, like -64dB order of order of magnitude (if that makes any sense). In 16 bit mode there is extreme quantization noise at low volume levels. If a song fades out, you will here weird digital artifacts. I set the volume to the lowest level, played some music and recorded it with a loopback cable, and it was actually an interesting effect, but not something I would want to listen to. Setting it for 24 bit mode fixes the quantization noise, but the noise floor is still high enough to be almost distracting for at most reasonable volume levels.

      I don't know much about the new MBPs- I'm sure they are better, but I think they are still not great. They most likely aren't going to beat the integrated card in this article. Luckily some of them have optical out, which is nice since you can use an external dac if needed.

  26. Depends on purpose... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    My HTPC uses my ATI card as the soundcard - HDMI audio. Which is nice because it does support the necessary protected path audio so I can play my blu-rays and send the Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio over HDMI.

    My laptop has a USB dongle that encodes 5.1 audio into a DTS or DD stream so I can play games with surround. Again, not likely something to have onboard anymore (the old nVidia chipsets used to have a DD encoder).

    And there's also the music (though usually they go for Firewire or USB interfaces?) angle where they need low-latency and a bunch of interfaces (MIDI, multichannel audio, etc).

    Discrete sound cards are still useful in niche areas - HTPCs with HDMI out, getting 5.1 without a ton of analog cables (using a digital path), and low-latency/high-quality music uses. But for the general population, they're pretty much dead except for the hardcore gamer that wants to get an extra .1 FPS because their soundcard offloads the 3D sound mixing. Maybe the only other area may be to the purist who wants better DACs than the cheap crap they put on onboard audio, though they would probably just use a digital output in some way.

    1. Re:Depends on purpose... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Which is nice because it does support the necessary protected path audio

      The protected audio path is suddenly "necessary" and "nice"?!?

      What the hell... man, please get an audio player software that disregards DRM (Blu-Ray DRM has been defeated) and you'll be able to send this to any sound card no matter if it degrades to the protected audio path or not.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Depends on purpose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USB dongle that encodes 5.1 audio into a DTS or DD stream

      Very interesting... Dow you happen to know the make / model of this dongle?

  27. You do. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    it depends on what you buy. i bought a creative x-treme music card years ago. its sound quality (coupled with an altec lansing fx6021 speaker set) is "beyond". i have stopped using our family's beloved 5 rack pioneer set with its expensive speakers.

    both x-treme music card and altec lansing fx6021 were rather cheap. no, you really dont need to spend $400 on a hipster-labeled 'Beyond gameRx SuperCardBrand', but, you should spend some if you want to get some.

    unfortunately both xtreme music and fx6021 are not on the market anymore. i can understand that sb moved onto new cards (despite having a very bad batch after x-treme music), but i cannot understand why altec stopped making stellar in-concert array speakers like fx6021 and moved to 'hipster appledy' shit.

    1. Re:You do. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I buyed a Creative X-Fi PCI-E Titanium Fatal1ty...

      Pure and expensive junk. It is difficult to make the games detect and use the resources of the board, and when they use I did not realize any difference to my ADI2000B (onboard) (and yes, I have good speakers).

      And when listening to normal music also seemed to be the difference does not exist for me, with the additional problem that I have to deal with the ridiculous sound driver from Creative and all the garbage that comes along.

      In the end, I asked for a refund and returned the X-Fi card

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  28. Rather depends... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    That question really seems to depend on your budget and your motherboard...

    If you are in the really cheap seats, you should probably spend whatever audio money you have on speakers or headphones that don't utterly suck. OK speakers/headphone drivers are still much trickier than OK silicon amps and DACs. On the other hand, a lot of today's fancy motherboards are happy to output S/PDIF in your choice of optical or electrical, which lets the DACs and amplification in your receiver, which can be of virtually arbitrary niceness, do the job. I'm sure there is some way that realtek can manage to fuck up dumping a pure digital bitstream across a purely digital bus; but it'll take some doing.

    Only in the middle, where you have speakers/headphones nice enough to hear subtle imperfections(or just cranked so loud that you are getting repeatedly trampled into the noise floor) and the budget left over for a nice discrete card does it really make any sense. That and, of course, application specific stuff like audio recording, since motherboards don't exactly come with a bevy of XLR jacks...

    The days when all that software positional audio dragged your overclocked celeron 333 down and wrecked your FPS framerates just aren't really with us anymore...

  29. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    That's actually not a bad idea. I wonder how complex your algorithms would have to be to determine if the sounds produced are of gunshots or female moans.

    Too many times I've either gone from an FPS to a naughty website or vice versa and either the volume was left down or too high and either I can't hear the game or some horny girl can be heard all throughout the house.

    What I need is a dedicated card that can handle all that for me - anytime I try to set up different volume controls per application in Windows, it never sticks.

  30. does anyone still buy overpriced creative crap? by alen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    used to spend $250 or so on a sound card in the old days but in the last few years the onboard chips have become good enough. the worst part about the old Audigy cards was you had to install all the crappy software that most people didn't use

    1. Re:does anyone still buy overpriced creative crap? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I picked up my first SB Live card for about $30 OEM when I was buying some other stuff. Came pretty barebones, just card, antistatic pouch and driver disc, but definitely a good buy. Historically the price for a SB card was between $50 and $100 or so, except for a relatively brief period when those cards were out and hadn't yet been undercut by decent integrated audio..

    2. Re:does anyone still buy overpriced creative crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are alternatives to Creative's bloatware.

      Also, it appears that you forgot the "I" at the beginning of your sentence. Every sentence needs a subject!

  31. Hello? What about the dick-waving contest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How am I supposed to gloat about how awesome my sound setup is if I don't have a discrete sound card? Instead of wasting time with blind listening tests, they should go to a bar, walk up to a woman and say:

    Hey, baby, wanna come home and listen to my 7.1-channel, 24-bit, 192kHz Xense sound card while I rock you all night long?

    versus

    Excuse me, miss, would you like to come home and listen to my integrated sound card while I cry about my ex-girlfriend and prematurely ejaculate?

    This is what I call real-life testing scenarios.

    1. Re:Hello? What about the dick-waving contest? by pspahn · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think in this case, since you don't want to wake up your parents upstairs, the integrated option would probably be best.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    2. Re:Hello? What about the dick-waving contest? by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, miss, would you like to come home and listen to my integrated sound card while I cry about my ex-girlfriend and prematurely ejaculate?

      You might be surprised at the response you get. After all, someone's got to be buying those emo albums!

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    3. Re:Hello? What about the dick-waving contest? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      prematurely ejaculate?

      As a life time sufferer and frequent air traveler I can tell you that PE takes the sting out of airport security

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  32. Oh man, the memories... by Pojut · · Score: 1

    Dude, I remember back in the day when I got a Creative AWE 64 Gold card. That's right, the ISA one with the gold-plated RCA outputs, expandable RAM, and general kickassery.

    I still have the shiny plastic bit that came on the front of the box! It's sitting just to the left of the framed Fuckwad Theory print.

    1. Re:Oh man, the memories... by Alyred · · Score: 1

      Wow, you have a naked blacklight sitting at eye level? Crazy... hope you don't run that thing often while gaming.

    2. Re:Oh man, the memories... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SB PRO 1.0 ...

      Hey it was WAY better than the built in speaker...

    3. Re:Oh man, the memories... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      No biggie...the bulb isn't very bright, and because of how I position myself while gaming, the light is more in line with the top of my head rather than eye-level. Being short helps :-)

    4. Re:Oh man, the memories... by cryoknight · · Score: 0

      Daggerfall blew me away when I got the Awe64!

      Ah, good old midi.
      Now I have to run a win98 virtual machine so I can still listen to midis with the Yamaha Sound Synth.
      Or boot into XP to run dosbox to play the old games with that Yamaha quality midi sound...

      If only Yamaha would make a virtual sound synth for Vista/Win7 x64.

  33. A different question - do I need a "gaming" card? by sseaman · · Score: 1

    I've tried researching this for some time on-line, and haven't found a clear answer.

    I want:

    1. Surround sound in game.
    2. Surround sound over headphones.
    3. Environmental effects.
    4. Decent sound.

    This should be what most gamers want, right? I can't be the only person out there wearing headphones, and when I got environmental effects to work on my old-gen M-Audio in Half-Life 2, they sounded awesome (unfortunately, the Sensaura drivers for that feature were bad and it didn't work most of the time).

    I've heard new games can provide environmental noise effects without dedicated EAX - is that true?

    Is surround over regular headphones effective? I don't see it advertised as a feature any more. Have companies just given up on it?

  34. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Stregano · · Score: 4, Funny

    I always end up with the opposite. The gun shots are so loud I pretty much assume that there is a drive-by outside and am surprised my neighbors in my apartment complex do not call the cops for me shooting somebody in my house, and then when I watch some awesome porn, I can't hear the storyline, and nothing is worse than not knowing the storyline.

    I know he is supposed to be a repairman fixing the cable, but maybe he has another motive.

    --
    The world is how you make it
  35. Re:Phirst phoast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You phail.

  36. Creative X-FI is far better than my onboard audio. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Despite Creative's very rocky buggy drivers early on and design issues with early X-FI's The Fatality Tittanium card has been incredible compared to my built in audio on my intel board.

    I could NEVER get line in to work on the realtek stuff. It was always flakey, the drivers first said it wasnt possible due to a design bug, then a year later they updated and line in was there... but it barely functioned right. I use line in because I have 2 workstations next to each other.

    So I went and bought an XFI... thinking it would cure all my problems. It did, but it too had driver issues, there was a serious latency issue with audio where it would corrupt audio until you restarted a program... namely ITUNES caused it all the damn time.

    I rarely run into the issue now though. But the card has been a very good experience, audio quality is great, very little machine noise bleeds in, where as my onboard audio was so noisy.

    I use XBMC and pipe out the DTS to a receiver, the XFI does it all very well.

    I'm glad I bought it, although it has its issues and Creative really needs to get their shit together because I may look elsewhere next time for a more supported card that gets more frequent driver updates. But all in all, the chip on the XFI is extremely good, and the card surpasses the onboard in function, audio quality and even driver support...

  37. It's the noise by Chemisor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The main reason to get a discrete card is the noise. Onboard audio always puts out white noise to the speakers, which you really can hear in a quiet environment. My Xonar D2X puts out no noise at all; you can put your ear right to the speaker and hear nothing. This way I can leave the speakers on instead of having to turn them on each time I want to watch a movie and turn them back off again to avoid the damn noise grating on my ears. The card's sound quality is excellent and Linux fully supports it.

    1. Re:It's the noise by Nemosoft+Unv. · · Score: 1

      Even more relevant: the *recording* noise. On-board microphone inputs usually pick up more noise from the CPU & other chips than the signal you actually want; line inputs are not much better. Even for speech applications like skype, msn etc. it's very annoying if you hear the constant rattle from your PC or the other side. If you want to do even moderately serious sound recording, a discrete card is a must.

      --
      "Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
    2. Re:It's the noise by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

      Not all motherboards are like this. Some have excellent shielding and the output (from the back ports, at least) is interference-free.

    3. Re:It's the noise by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Often just using a proper mic+preamp on the line-in of a consumer sound card is good enough. On cards where you can also work out the latency issues (e.g. for mix dubbing and for softsynths and so on), a lot of people have gotten results good enough results to be "production quality" on shoestring budgets. On the other hand, a nice M-Audio card, a Behringer mixer (they do get the job done), and a Chinese condenser mic or an SM58 clone or whatever fits your style, probably also qualifies as "shoestring budget" for this purpose. For some, it's all about working with what you have, or can scrounge up.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:It's the noise by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 1

      Oh really? Point one out to me. Just one example. That's all it takes to make your point valid.

    5. Re:It's the noise by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

      The sound from my Asus P5Q is as interference-free as the sound from my Xonar DX. Again, rear ports only. I've heard interference on other on onboard sound and on cheaper add-on cards like the sound blaster pci, but not from this motherboard.

    6. Re:It's the noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main reason to get a discrete card is the noise. Onboard audio always puts out white noise to the speakers, which you really can hear in a quiet environment. My Xonar D2X puts out no noise at all; you can put your ear right to the speaker and hear nothing. This way I can leave the speakers on instead of having to turn them on each time I want to watch a movie and turn them back off again to avoid the damn noise grating on my ears. The card's sound quality is excellent and Linux fully supports it.

      The noise has more to do with the quality of the ports, connectors, and cable and card shielding than the card itself. Although I will agree that the chips on the on-board cards are low-end and don't have full audio spectrum range, and usually do some trickery to actually accomplish surround so they can indeed introduce more artifacts than an add-on board.

      A sound card can only handle a finite number of unique sound events, since it has to combine them all into the proper output wave form. The processing is more intense for 5.1 surround than mono, for example, so if you're running a hefty surround system you'll have a lower number of events it can handle before showing artifacts. The chips on the on-board cards usually just aren't 'beefy' enough to handle a large number of events occurring at the same time, so if you're doing something like online gaming which has a lot of events & running a nice surround system you will see a lot more benefit than someone using a pair of crappy desktop speakers who only uses it to watch youtube videos.

      The other reason to get a sound card is usually input/output connectors- the on-board cards are still fairly limited. You can usually eliminate noise by going with an optical audio connector instead of an electrical one, but not many on-board cards have much other than the stereo mini-plug connectors.
      The third reason to get a sound card is for people who are doing professional recording and mixing. Even if your CPU can handle the load your bus probably can't, at least not without some occasional audio lag, and even a little lag or a single artifact can ruin an entire recording/mixing session. The add-on cards for professionals can do most of the processing on-board, allowing you to record, mix, and over-mix all in real time, plus they usually have specialty connectors like MIDI and/or firewire.

      But in the end, the vast majority of users, gamers or not, have little or no need for an add-on sound card.

    7. Re:It's the noise by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I've recently been asked if it was possible to do data acquisition using a sound card. My guess was that the noise would be trouble, as you state, but still I'd like to know more about the potential problems, like timing delays, max sampling freq, jittering, what API to use on Linux (with the mess of Alsa vs PulseAudio etc I wouldn't even know where to start), if it's possible to get more than 2 channels simultaneously (I need at least 3), using external trigger, external reference clock, etc... Maybe that's a potential ask slashdot.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    8. Re:It's the noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use onboard audio and don't have any white noise on my speakers. I turn my speakers off when not using them to save power, however.

    9. Re:It's the noise by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Onboard audio always puts out white noise to the speakers, which you really can hear in a quiet environment.

      So basically, as long as I have a wife and three kids in the house, I might as well not bother. But all you folks living in your parents' basement can really hear the difference.

  38. Depends on the application by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

    I do lots of stuff with DSP, playing with various sorts of digital modulation and demodulation. While the crappiest sound interface can capture everything there is to capture from a communications-quality audio signal, it's handy to have some extra signal-to-noise ratio or sampling rate for particular applications. I've played with PSK31, HF weather fax and weather satellites.

    ...laura

    1. Re:Depends on the application by vlm · · Score: 1

      Sampling rate is the critical metric for software defined radio. No audible difference between 44 KHz and 192 KHz sampling for human ears, but being able to tune 4 times as much bandwidth is a pretty big deal for SDR. And you need two cards for SDR assuming you want to both transmit and receive.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  39. Re:A different question - do I need a "gaming" car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is no such thing as surround sound over headphones. you have two ears.

  40. Just use a USB DAC, soundcard doesn't matter by Sirusjr · · Score: 1

    On a budget, you can go with the NuForce uDAC2 that supports 24 bit audio and can output to headphones, RCA, or digital coaxial. I use it for all my audio on the PC and it works great on those laptops where you have little choice on the soundcard. Laptops are the best example of the terrible sound of interference if you plug your headphones direct into the sound card so need the DAC the most. It is also small and portable so easy to switch between devices.

    1. Re:Just use a USB DAC, soundcard doesn't matter by moonbender · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking about getting a FiiO E7. It's both a USB DAC and a headphone amp. The internal battery is charged via USB, so you can use it as a (biggish) headphone amp while mobile. Audio quality is reportedly quite good for a "budget-fi" component. It's also cheap (< 100 USD). One review is at http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2010/08/28/FiiO-E7/p1, many more at head-fi.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    2. Re:Just use a USB DAC, soundcard doesn't matter by Sirusjr · · Score: 1

      Looks similar to the UDAC. Should work nice for an entry level.

  41. Sound engineers do by Kittenman · · Score: 1
    Not as opposed to unsound engineers... but my Sax teacher (I'm learning tenor sax) has a 'dream rig' that he's configured, which involves an Audigy card or some such. He's pretty set on it, and knows what he's talking about (did a Sound Audio Engineering course).

    So yes, sometimes.

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Sound engineers do by tweak13 · · Score: 1

      I really hope his dream rig has something a little nicer than an audigy. At least one of the cheaper stereo cards from Digigram would be about the minimum I'd want to do any serious recording. Sure, they're a bit more expensive, but if you want truly rock bottom noise levels you need a professional solution (with balanced inputs).

    2. Re:Sound engineers do by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >(did a Sound Audio Engineering course).

      And somehow never encountered M-Audio or MOTU devices. Interesting.

      What kind of mixing board is he using? And what I really want to know is what kind of mic or pickup is he using for his sax, and what kind of preamp with that mic? The mic+preamp combination is something of a gestalt, especially when you consider the source. Woodwinds have some specific challenges, and different challenges when recording solo vs. ensemble.

      A jazzer's "dream rig" had better have at least 8 or 12 discrete inputs. You need half of them just to mic a drum kit properly. If you want to place your winds and horns in a stereo field, you're going to want individual close tracks *and* Mid/Side tracks to work with. You probably need an XY pair inside the piano lid. You're out of inputs, and you haven't even got a mic in front of the singer.

      On the other hand, if he's simply recording a single track of his sax, he can do much worse than a SB card, especially if he uses a good mic+preamp. But this isn't really the scenario that a sax player wants to record, since we're almost universally talking about jazz ensembles.

      With that in mind, I'd also consider a location rig, something with good XY mics that can get good imaging of a group. For 2-channel XY, give me a Zoom H4 any day.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  42. Good for it by Riddler+Sensei · · Score: 1

    Several of the graphs show the frequency response of the different sound chips. I reckon it's SUPPOSE to demonstrate a short coming of the integrated Realtek chip because it falls off much sooner than the much more expensive expansion card, but it drops off at 20kHz - approximately the ceiling of human hearing. It's great that your $200+ card can output at 50kHz, but I personally wouldn't pay even $1 extra for the feature.

    As an aside, I'd be much more interested in a card that comes as part of a recording suite with some high end MIDI capabilities. If I could get some sort of card + Finale/Pro Tools/Vienna Symphonic Library (not necessarily all together...that'd be ridiculously expensive) that'd be heavenly.

  43. Re:AUDIOPHILE HERE !! IT'S all IN THE CABLES !! by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    Or save your money and get something decent like a Firewire external audio interface. I have a nice 12 in/out one that does 24-bit 192Khz. Obviously I'm not using that for general purpose stuff. You then have your PC and sound device well apart and isolated.

    If you're really serious about using analogue outputs (really, why bother?) and want the best quality then you would be using balanced in/out.

  44. Re:Phirst phoast by oldhack · · Score: 1

    For audio recording, get one with breakout box housing a/d converter externally.

    But I also have a few old ensoniq cards without external box that record and play pretty clean signal, and they were pretty cheap back when bought.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  45. Not anymore by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    Naturally this answer will vary depending on job-type requirements, but in general, if you're playing games or playing back music, the answer is now a pretty cut and dry "No".

    For many years integrated sound sucked. I would purposefully look for boards that didn't include it when motherboard shopping (didn't want unused ports on my board). Lately though, integrated sound - and network, has gotten to the point where it's good enough for anyone not wanting to indulge in a specialty/niche action.

    Sound cards just kinda peaked - they do what they do and do it well. There's still not much the average person would want to do these days that a Sound Blaster Live won't do - and that card is 12 years old. When the technology is that mature, you have to expect the integrated stuff to catch up.

    I'd expect integrated graphics to reach this level within a few years too.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:Not anymore by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      I think one thing that has really helped the Realtek on-board audio is the fact many high-end CPU's now sport 3, 4 or 6 CPU cores. As such, if programmed correctly Windows Vista and Windows 7 could dedicate one CPU core to nothing but audio processing, and that means no more system slowdowns processing audio through the Realtek chip.

      Indeed, multicore CPU's make it possible for dramatic improvements in even on-board video. Today's latest motherboards have surprisingly fast video, something that couldn't be said as little as five years ago.

  46. 10 year old SB Live! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a 10 year old SoundBlaster Live! that I've cannibalized from my old computers whenever I got a new one. The main difference as far as I can tell? The SB Live! driver (emu10k1) gives me hardware bass and treble controls in ALSA... That's pretty much the reason I keep it around. (It's possible that the sound quality is better I suppose, I haven't used a integrated sound card extensively in a long time)

  47. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by CaseyB · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder how complex your algorithms would have to be to determine if the sounds produced are of gunshots or female moans.

    They should give the Turing award to anyone that can produce an algorithm that can tell the difference between porn and women's tennis.

  48. Probably not by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

    My last PC had terrible interference when I used the onboard sound, or so I thought. Everyone's advice was to get a sound card, and guess what? It improved nothing. The problem was the front panel audio ports, not the sound hardware. The back ports on the motherboard sounded just as good as the ports on the pricey sound card.
    Since I don't game and I don't record audio, the only advantage the discrete sound card had was louder headphone output, and not even by much.

  49. Uhhh...did they test Realtek? by chemicaldave · · Score: 1
    I have nothing but bad things to say about their sound hardware (don't know the specific ones off the top of my head)

    I'll list some issues...

    • Bad software/user interface
    • Front panel detection stopped working
      • Incorrectly thought things were plugged into different jacks
    • Drivers that don't work well with many games
    • Bad digital out quality
      • crackly & popping noise when going on and off
      • No mini-stereo jack digital output. Forced to use mobo attachment which may be causing EMI (not sure if this is a mobo manufacturer issue)

    Seriously. Just spend the extra $50 on a half-decent dedicated card. You'll be glad you did...or you can just wait until you're fed-up with Realtek.

    1. Re:Uhhh...did they test Realtek? by armanox · · Score: 1

      The front panel on mine (particually Mic in) stopped working all together. That combined with poor sound output (compared to the SB Live! in my previous machine) led me to pick up an SB Audigy for $30. And it's been worth every penny I spent on it.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  50. noise by Polybius · · Score: 1

    Every on board sound I have ever tried while using headphones I could hear some sort of static noise with every action I made. Wiggle the mouse? acoustic noise happens right along with it, open or close a folder, a different tone of noise. My newest motherboard from about 2007 (Asus Striker extreme) had this problem.

  51. Depends on use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I originally didn't need a dedicated sound card. Integrated sound wasn't that great, but was good enough to make me not bother spending the extra money. The issue came when I got a headset and people on the other end complained about how horrid my input sounded. Once I got a dedicated sound card, the quality improved dramatically. It only cost $30, so it's not like I had to put down a lot to get the results I wanted either.

  52. For what purpose? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    For casual listening? For critical listening before delivering A/V work? For production A/V work? As part of a musical instrument?

    There are some mid-priced consumer audio devices that are good enough for most work (e.g., they have output fidelity that is already far beyond the limits of human perception.)

    But how is their input fidelity? If the concept of "input" doesn't occur to you, I'm sure it matters very little how good your sound card is. Once you get to a -27dB noise floor, you're probably fine.

    A sound card and monitoring environment good enough to stake your reputation as any sort of professional in anything audio related is a completely different scenario. And once you're recording, you can easily draw a bright line between consumer products that are good enough and those that are not.

    And yes, there are plenty of applications for consumer-grade devices in what amounts to professional levels of work. Personally I'm satisfied with my Delta 1010 and my pair of Genelecs. I have spent more on room treatment than on these items, but then I'm a semi-professional musician and I consider my sound card and monitors to be an very important part of my musical instrument. I have a friend who spent more on her cello *case* than my current computer cost. *shrug*.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:For what purpose? by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      >>I have a friend who spent more on her cello *case* than my current computer cost. *shrug*. I once worked with a guy in BT who had a sideline as a Jazz Violinist I rember once he said he had his Violin with him and commented 's his second best bow which was worth getting on for £800. Though he was semi pro and had a residency at the Balmorral (best hotel in edinburgh) at the Endinburgh festival one year. Even better was the developer (who had been a session musician) I worked with who used to say things in the pub "oh i think i played on that" when certain tracks came on the Jukebox.

  53. USB and Firewire both hook to real audio interface units well enough, although, if you want to go high end, you might still want to use a PCI interface card.

    --
    That is all.
  54. Re:A different question - do I need a "gaming" car by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    I can't answer 2 and 4, but as for 1 and 3... my computer is a few years old and has an integrated Realtek ALC888S sound processor. It seems to do environmental effects OK in Source (HL2) based games.

    Note: I'm saying this purely from my experience playing Team Fortress 2, as it's the Source game I've played the most... I've noticed that Source has different effects based on the floor and room types. A good example of this would be the echoing in the sewer tunnels below 2fort.

    Then again, I don't know if this is specific to the Orange Box 2009 version of the engine or if it affects all Source games (almost all of Valve's games were updated to at least Orange Box 2007 with their Mac releases).

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  55. How weak was your CPU?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no way that playing an mp3 should use that much CPU.

    I have a 7-year-old laptop (IBM Thinkpad T30 with a 1.6666ghz processor) and I've never seen Winamp use more than 1% of my CPU on it.

    Maybe if you're using some bloated garbage like Windows

  56. Got relays, beyatch? by Cordath · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sound quality matters, but sometimes small features that one might usually overlook even more.

    For example, say that you have a nice speaker setup and a good amp, but an aging pre-amp that can no longer decode the latest audio formats. If you run things with a PC, the pre-amp is basically a very expensive DAC. If you can find a sound-card with good DAC's on it you can, in theory, just toss the old pre-amp and connect your computer directly to your amp.

    Problem! When a computer boots up, a large voltage spike goes through its various components including the audio card. With many audio cards or audio chipsets this spike goes right out the line to your amp, which dutifully amplifies it into a very large CRAWHOOMP!!! Besides causing your cat or dog to projectile defecate on whatever it happens to be near at the time, this can also damage your speakers and/or amp!

    How do other components like pre-amps get around this problem? Good audio components all have some way of electrically isolating their outputs from the rest of the device so that these power-up CRAWHOOMP's don't happen. This usually means electromechanical relays. This is why your expensive amp or receiver usually makes some clicking noises moments after being powered up. That's the relays clicking into place once voltage levels have normalised.

    Good audio cards, like the Asus Xonar series, also have these now. On-board chip-sets usually do not since it would add a few dollars to the price of the board and most people don't plug their computers output directly into an expensive amp and speakers.

    Long story short, what audio components you hook up to your computer and how you hook them up both have a large impact on the features you need in your computer's audio card. For a long time, computers had zero chance of replacing pre-amps because almost all audio cards lacked the small features that good audio gear almost universally possesses. That's changing, and about time too!

    1. Re:Got relays, beyatch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ow do other components like pre-amps get around this problem? Good audio components all have some way of electrically isolating their outputs from the rest of the device so that these power-up CRAWHOOMP's don't happen. This usually means electromechanical relays. This is why your expensive amp or receiver usually makes some clicking noises moments after being powered up. That's the relays clicking into place once voltage levels have normalised.

      Good audio cards, like the Asus Xonar series, also have these now. On-board chip-sets usually do not since it would add a few dollars to the price of the board and most people don't plug their computers output directly into an expensive amp and speakers.

      Older macs used to do this but I don't think they fixed it with mechanical relays. That sounds so barbaric for a PC[/Mac].

    2. Re:Got relays, beyatch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The popping problem happens even with pro audio, fancy multi kilowatt amp racks and line arrays. The front of house mixers and processors can pop very loudly, and risk destroying the speakers.

      The solution? Amplifiers are the last to ever be turned on and the first to ever be turned off. No more dangerous popping.

      I use that same principle with home audio and have never had a problem.

    3. Re:Got relays, beyatch? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Good points, and all.

      But my favorite amplifier (in my possession, anyway) is an Ashly FET-1000, which has no relays. The only thing to go "cha-whump" when turning it on or off is anything else on the same circuit, when the voltage on the line dips for a moment as the power supply caps first charge and the lights dim a bit.

      Clearly, it's possible to design componentry which needs no relays to avoid horrible noises. There are exceptions, though:

      In the livingroom, I have an old Rotel preamp which makes horrible squeeling noises whenever it is unplugged. Amusingly, it has a turn-on delay and is very well-behaved in instances other than loss of power.

      The system by the PC certainly does go "cha-whump" when the computer turns on, or is rebooted. It runs into straight into the power amp section of a Proton D540 with no volume control in-line.

      It'd be nice if the sound card (an Audigy) wouldn't do that, but I'm not holding my breath. The speakers are in sealed boxes, so a big meaty high-amplitude cha-wump won't immediately destroy them, and the particular amplifier does have huge amount of current available for brief moments as a design feature, so I worry not about my particular rig.

      It's just not loud enough, long enough to heat up the voice coils or piss off the amp. And it's too low-frequency in nature to cause the 8" woofers any particular mechanical distress.

      Were I using ported cabinets, smaller drivers, and something like a Class D Tripath amp, I'd be more worried about hurting things. But I'm not, so I don't. It's just annoying.

    4. Re:Got relays, beyatch? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      This is why you always, always turn your speakers/amp on last.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    5. Re:Got relays, beyatch? by ooburns · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, it appears you've coined the term CRAWHOOMP.

  57. Re:Phirst phoast by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you record audio, yes. If you don't, no.

    Absolutely right, but not only if you intend to record new audio. If you intend to podcast or make music with your computer, whether with MIDI instruments, or by using found sounds or with a microphone and guitar, you'll want to have a discrete audio adapter.

    And it can be done very cheaply with professional results. USB audio adapters, with included pre-amps for mics and direct instrument connections, can be had for well under $100. And once you get the audio into the computer, you'll want to be able to hear it loudly and accurately, using the outputs on the adapter. Though many home music producers say it's absolutely necessary to use a pair of high-quality (audio) monitors to mix down the sound, a lot of passable work can be done with a good pair of headphones (though you'll have to make some adjustments to compensate), especially if you're doing electronica or dance music.

    I designed the computer music lab at a major university, with a big fat budget, and I've helped students get off the ground with a few hundred bucks (including a midi controller).

    Commercial-quality audio production has never been more accessible, and that makes me happy if for no other reason than that it can cut the major record labels out of the chain from idea to finished product.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  58. I think you're confusing a few things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It sounds like you're talking about the nVidia nForce 2 chipset, which was great, and notable for Soundstorm's real-time Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding.

  59. Hardware mixing by TechwoIf · · Score: 1

    What about hardware mixing? The bane of Linux users that found out there sound card can't handle more then one program using the output at the same without going through some insane hoops. There been a few sound servers to address this shortcoming.

    1. Re:Hardware mixing by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Modern CPU's can literally add thousands of audio streams together at full 48kHz without much of a significant CPU load.

      44,100 samples per second * 1000 channels (500 stereo) = 44,100,000 16-bit additions per second..

      In other words, a modern CPU could literally mix hundreds of audio streams simultaneously.. the absurdity of the trivial amount of CPU time required has manifested in audio drives that perform many effects that require significant amounts of Fourier Transforms, and *still* the CPU time requires is negligible.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Hardware mixing by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Mix engine is nothing. Rendering time-value effects and software synths in a "realtime" mix environment is another story.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:Hardware mixing by TechwoIf · · Score: 1

      That is well and good. But try to play two programs at once that access the sound device at the same time and all the CPU in the world won't help you there. Who would want to play more then one sound at a time? Try playing some music while the desktop plays a notification sound. Or while online in a vitriol world, play a media stream while attending a music event.

  60. What about internal vs. external sound card? by joib · · Score: 1

    Seems nowadays quite many of the pro(sumer) sound cards are external ones connected via USB.

    Presumably the idea being to isolate the DAC from all the electrical noise inside the case?

    What about latency on these things? One would imagine that one extra protocol hop would add latency, and then traffic would have to be shared with other traffic on the same bus? I mean, people doing audio production seem to be sensitive to latency, to the point that Linux users use the RT kernel. Is USB really up to it?

    1. Re:What about internal vs. external sound card? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Its not really an extra "protocol hop" .. sound boards dont magically get their data either..

      Usually its got to be pumped to the sound board via the DMA controller... for PCIe, thats across the BUS/HT and then onto PCIe lanes...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:What about internal vs. external sound card? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      All really good questions, I've been wondering that myself. I use a receiver that seems to have a pretty good D/A converter. My Bose 901 speakers usually need their own special (analogue) equalizer to sound right, but I've been able to duplicate the effect of the equalizer in software. I just do all the signal processing in the computer and send it out over optical. I find that to be much less noisy than the feeding of an analogue signal through an equalizer and whatever else - especially because my 901's need a big boost in the (hissy) treble range. I wonder about latency, though. For media use, it's not an issue. I haven't tried gaming on that system.

    3. Re:What about internal vs. external sound card? by egoots · · Score: 1

      USB isochronous interfaces guarantee timely delivery. You can also reserve bandwidth so other traffic doesn't affect it. Latency is "bounded" but I don't have figures on what the actual bounds are. (USB 1.1 had 1msec frames and USB 2.0 has microframes at 1/8th of that... so you can get a feel) Now -- given a crappy device driver and all bets are off.

    4. Re:What about internal vs. external sound card? by canistel · · Score: 1

      Yes, USB 2 is more than acceptable. I have a motu microbook which even draws it's power from the usb source, and the sound quality is second to none. Using ASIO drivers (windows) there is absolutely no latency (there will certainly be less latency then using an onboard sound card without ASIO drivers).

    5. Re:What about internal vs. external sound card? by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      What about latency on these things?

      Negligible.

      Is USB really up to it?

      Yep.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  61. When using $$$ headphones in a quiet environment. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    Most people I know, including many gamers, aren't using expensive headphones in a quiet environment.

    Most are using either cheap headphones, or cheap speakers. Yes, some have higher-end speakers, but not a majority by far. No classical music, no country music, no jazz, no bluegrass, no .... you get the point. They picked a bunch of rock/alternative tracks. They didn't even do blind listening tests for games, movies, or anything other than rock/alternative music.

    Oh well. At least the testers were a variety of "audiophile"-ness.

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  62. media center by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I can see where a distinct sound card would be useful in a media center. I can't for the life of me get the stupid onboard audio working in 5.1 mode on my current board with Windows 7, even though it's supposed to be supported. I'm thinking of just shutting it down in bios and trying again with a discrete card. Oblig. Ask Slashdot: Any suggestions?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:media center by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      I can see where a distinct sound card would be useful in a media center. I can't for the life of me get the stupid onboard audio working in 5.1 mode on my current board with Windows 7, even though it's supposed to be supported. I'm thinking of just shutting it down in bios and trying again with a discrete card. Oblig. Ask Slashdot: Any suggestions?

      I had just the opposite problem. After trying two different discreet cards (one a SB Audigy one a Hercules something or other) and not being able to get 5.1 Dolby Digital to work, I switched to using the onboard digital passthrough and it was rock solid.

      Later, I upgraded to a video card that covered full audio over the HDMI connection and I'd NEVER go back now, at least not on a media server that's connected through an AV receiver.

    2. Re:media center by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Which video card, please?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:media center by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      Which video card, please?

      a VERY inexpensive card: MSI R4350-MD512H Radeon HD 4350

      goes for about $35 on newegg.

      I dont' know that I'd try to play call of duty on it, but for a media server it does great. Blu-ray decoding on card and 7.1 audio over HDMI.

  63. I was just discussing this by LilGuy · · Score: 1

    My friend and I were just talking about this last night. He had just reinstalled XP because he couldn't get his Audigy to work in Win7. I also have not been able to get either of my perfectly working older Sound Blaster Live cards to work under Win7. It appears Creative isn't going to release any new drivers and would rather you go spend $100-$200 on a new card when yours already work perfectly fine.

    I know the audio I'm getting from my mobo isn't as good as it could be. I also preferred the fine controls I had with my Soundblaster cards. But I will live with the onboard versus going to buy a new card when the ones I have are perfectly fine.

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
    1. Re:I was just discussing this by armanox · · Score: 1

      Considering the SB Live! is from 1998 I don't expect Creative to support it on newer operating systems. I bought a SB Audigy for ~ 30USD for my Win7 box (and have a Live! in my XP box) that I have not seen driver issues with.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    2. Re:I was just discussing this by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      Why not? Fixing a driver should be a trivial issue. The hardware still works perfectly fine. I see no reason to "upgrade".

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
  64. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Contrary to poplar belief, the words "discrete" and "discreet" are not spelled the same way...

  65. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spoiler: they have sex.

  66. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should give the Turing award to anyone that can produce an algorithm that can tell the difference between porn and women's tennis.

    You mean women's tennis isn't porn?

  67. Re:Phirst phoast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you record audio, yes. If you don't, no.

    Bullshit. IDT* 92x "HD" audio chips found on many motherboards and laptops are easily overwhelmed if multiple programs attempt to play audio. The output is simply corrupted if >2 sources of audio attempt to use these devices, even briefly. No recording required to encounter these deficiencies. I've had personal experience with these devices on several systems so I know for fact that, at least in these cases, you're talking out of your ass.

  68. If you have to ask... by toxonix · · Score: 1

    you can't afford it. AD/DA conversion should happen in its own box, away from the mother board. An audio card that slots into the motherboard is just as bad as an audio processor with AD/DAs built into the motherboard. Both are going to make a lot of noise. In this case, the difference between $30 and $230 is negligible.

    1. Re:If you have to ask... by tweak13 · · Score: 1

      This seems to be a pretty popular opinion, but it's completely unjustified. Your hardware is going to determine your noise level, regardless of being inside or outside the case.

      I used to work for a radio network that fed more than 20 stations. We had literally dozens of pro level sound cards, and every single one of them was internal. Some of them were being fed analog signals running through almost 200 feet of cable to get to the server the card was in. Noise levels on all these cards were absolutely rock bottom. As in below -120db. That's low enough that it can't even be represented in 16 bit audio.

      Of course, we paid several thousand apiece for those cards, but that's because we needed multiple inputs and outputs on many of them. There are some great 2 channel stereo cards available for under $500 that have about that level of performance. In the end, if you really need great performance from your audio hardware, be prepared to pay for it. And that goes for everything in your audio chain.

    2. Re:If you have to ask... by toxonix · · Score: 1

      Well I think there are two ways the low noise can be achieved: move the AD part away from the noise source, or shield the whole thing in a Faraday cage. Professional broadcast equipment is going to need lots of shielding, and is usually out of a consumer's price range!

  69. DDLive/DTS Connect by otis+wildflower · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you want digital surround sound for a HTPC, you want Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect to transcode into DD/DTS bitstream into your HT receiver.

    AFAIK there are currently ZERO onboard sound chips that do this.

    Yes, you could run 6 cables from the back of the HTPC into the analog preamp ins on your receiver (assuming it isn't a skinny modern HTPC-in-a-box that only has SPDIF or HDMI in) but you'd likely also end up with hum and other strange sound artifacts from the chintzy DAC..

    These days, I'd _REALLY_ prefer a dump of 5.1 LPCM over HDMI, and it's technically probably easier to do to boot, or at least less license-y..

    1. Re:DDLive/DTS Connect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Realtek onboard sound chip (Gigabyte motherboard) supports DTS Connect. I used it for a few years to get 5.1 over S/PDIF. These days I use 5.1 LPCM HDMI audio though, which as you pointed out is preferable when available.

    2. Re:DDLive/DTS Connect by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Neat, the last onboard chipset I'm aware of offhand is the nForce2, which did DDL.. I have a CMI 8788-based PCI card (B-Enspirer)..

    3. Re:DDLive/DTS Connect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I just happened to receive today a new Gigabyte motherboard that can, in fact, output DDL. And compared to the X-Fi XtremeGamer with its utterly craptastic drivers (with the DDL/DTS Connect pack) that I was using before, the Realtek codec and its drivers seem work flawlessly. Especially regarding the DDL output, which can handle both games and videos without any problems.

  70. Re:A different question - do I need a "gaming" car by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

    And with a 255.1 system you grow more ears?

    You can process the signal that's going to the headphones so that it sounds like surround, after all, headphones have a speaker for each ear.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Headphone

  71. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by aevan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Subtitles! Porn with subtitles on is the only way to watch. Not only will you know the plot, but you'll learn to recognise "high pitch moan", "soft moan" "moans increase in volume" etc. Just need them to start putting the subtitling at the top of the screen instead of the bottom. Now if only they also had porn come in Described Video, preferably by Betty White

  72. Re:Phirst phoast by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a driver issue. If the hardware can't handle the mixing, it should be done in software. A modern CPU will use a tiny fraction of its power mixing a dozen or so audio streams.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  73. "We don't let advertisers write our reviews" by tepples · · Score: 1

    They reveal the authors insistence on going into excruciating detail on everything. Maybe his attention to detail makes him a better audio engineer/evaluator, but honestly we would have been fine with "The subjects preferred X card for Y music by a substantial margin"...

    In my opinion, showing one's work is a way to deflect claims that advertisers inappropriately influenced the review's conclusion.

  74. Re: SB Audigy, etc. by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Actually, I just had a reason to check sound card prices this morning, because I had a client call who wants their sound problem fixed on their PC. Seems someone yanked a pair of headphones out of the front audio jack suddenly and accidentally, damaging the jack itself. Now the PC only makes nasty buzzing sounds, if anything, when you plug any speakers or headphones into it. Since it uses integrated audio, my plan was to disable the on-board sound in the BIOS and just add a sound card to use instead.

    It appears you can buy a Creative Labs branded card for around $30 these days from many sources online, so they're not premium priced like they once were.

    And while I agree they loaded a bunch of "bloatware" with their installation discs, I suppose the biggest benefit to buying a Creative card today is the support. With a lot of these other cards, they just use various Crystal Semiconductor chipsets on a generic board design, and they can be a huge pain to get updated drivers for, if anything newer than whatever your version of Windows auto-detects/installs is ever released.

  75. don't need a card for recording audio by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Just get a USB or Firewire audio interface for recording audio. Many of them have better quality than internal cards anyway. There's absolutely no need to get a card.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:don't need a card for recording audio by emt377 · · Score: 1

      Just get a USB or Firewire audio interface for recording audio. Many of them have better quality than internal cards anyway. There's absolutely no need to get a card.

      Of course there are specific needs that can't be met with USB/FW. But recording and audio playback isn't among them; getting perfect lip sync with video however is virtually impossible with any buffered device. For that you need SPDIF or a card. A SPDIF device with quality clock recovery will cost a lot more than either USB/FW audio capture and playback, while sounding about the same (but with a completely different level of sync). A card will have the same level of sync control as SPDIF, but will never reach the same sound quality as an outboard, and is probably not acceptable for any professional video production or playback environment. A lot of low-end SPDIF DACs work, but are very sensitive to jitter.

  76. Of course I need a discrete sound card by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Don't you just hate it when your sound card blabs to everyone about what sounds you've been listening to? Discretion is THE most important trait I look for in a sound card!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Of course I need a discrete sound card by Nimey · · Score: 1

      PROTIP: Be sure you're getting it right when you're being pedantic.

      You're thinking of "discreet".

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  77. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Not only that, but he comes _on_ her, instead of _in_ her. Just like everyone does when they have sex. How anybody ever winds up pregnant is beyond me...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  78. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by diesel66 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The music gives it away.

    --



    eleven plus two / twelve plus one
  79. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now if only they also had porn come in Described Video, preferably by Betty White. Dude, don't make in invoke Rule 34!

    By the way, just to be clear, did you want Betty White doing the acting, or Betty White doing the voice-over? 'Cause I'm pretty sure either way would be fucking hilarious!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  80. Old News by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    I've been claiming this since I bought a PowerPC Mac about 15 years ago. The onboard audio from old Apple hardware was great (not so sure about the current iMacs, since they are "consumer grade" by definition).

    I haven't purchased a sound card(except for the one PC I built from scratch) since, well, ever. With a modern higher end computer, you should expect the on-board audio to be sufficient for 99% of the market (with the pro-audio crowd needing something better).

    We are actually using the onboard audio from our Dell towers at work instead of the 5 year old SoundBlaster Audigy soudn card we bought because the onboard performs more reliably and with no perceivable quality loss.

  81. Depends on the use...... by Slugster · · Score: 1

    Creative cards are best for gaming because they support EAX (if the game has it).
    Also they are (were) great for MIDI music creation as they supported soundfonts in hardware mode (sadly, in Win7 this no longer seems to be true). When it came to jamming with MIDI files, a plain low-end Soundblaster Live could kick ass compared to a lot of other-brand soundcards that cost 3-4X as much.

    Audiophile cards are best for music playback, but often lack any features to modify the sound at all (no bass/treble control, not even software volume control). Also they may have no MIDI, or a really poor-sounding MIDI table built-in.

    I had a PC with a Soundblaster Audigy and an Audiphile 2496 in it last time around.
    The Creative was best for gaming, easily.
    The M-Audio had the cleanest signals in and out, easily. The onboard sound didn't come close to what either of the cards could do, at what they were best....
    ~

    1. Re:Depends on the use...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't say I agree with you. No matter how good a Creative card might sound, I prefer my game not to crash because of Creative's flaky drivers and/or quirky hardware.

  82. Gaming and soundcards can also go well together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a bad headset for gaming, go with the onboard sound. Although a better mic-input can make gaming easier. I remember the "whining-mic" problem on teamspeak and vent while WoWing. But, if you only use headsets, there are many good USB-sets for gaming. Logitech has some with hotkeys at the ears. This sounds unnecessary, but I can assure you that many gamers have much more unnecessary accessories then that. Also, not all motherboards support Dolby-Digital Live encoding. This means the surround-amp will only get PCM-stereo while gaming. And the drivers for some sound-cards have some nifty features.

  83. Re:Phirst phoast by aitikin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And that is why, at a recent AES conference there was a great little speech given about how Audio is the only industry that eats its young. If it doesn't matter to the average consumer how it sounds, than we will progressively get worse and worse quality audio considered passable. It's sad enough that people are preferring the sound of MP3s and most have never heard music on anything better than crappy cheap earbuds or, at best, a poorly configured home theater system, yet they claim to love their music.

    If I had a nickel for every time I've sat someone down in front of a decent quality sound system (think $500 system, counting receiver and speakers or receiver and headphones) and played them an album that they, "know inside and out" and they find something new that they've heard before, I would be able to afford the amazing speakers that a friend works with. Let's be honest, as long as people consider iTunes 128 kbps AAC to be, "High Quality" and 256 kbps AAC to be, "Highest Quality" with 128 MP3 being acceptable, it doesn't matter how expensive your soundcard is, it won't sound good.

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  84. Re:Phirst phoast by aitikin · · Score: 1

    ...and how is it routed? Digital or Analog? Running to a receiver? Because if it's digital, running to a receiver you have ignored the point of TFA (and I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment). If you're running analog out of the card, well, then I can put up a decent argument against what you're claiming.

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  85. What I want is an Audio/Video card by Wokan · · Score: 1

    I would like to have a video card with an HDMI output that also puts sound through that HDMI connection. Either by means of an audio in or by emulating a second card to the board to work with existing audio and video drivers. And I want a Linux driver that supports the card(s).

    1. Re:What I want is an Audio/Video card by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      Already done for some time. From personal experience (various myth setups) the NVidia chipsets support HDMI output with upto 7.1 surrond sound, natively supported on Ubuntu.

      I imagine ATI etc are also supported for this.

    2. Re:What I want is an Audio/Video card by MichaelKristopeit193 · · Score: 0

      i'm sold on HDMI as well... i want a 5.1 surround system with 3-5 HDMI inputs and speaker wire outputs with a single HDMI audio/video out. i haven't been able to find something like this... i'm looking in the $300 and below range. it seems like such a device would be cheap due to it's simplicity.

    3. Re:What I want is an Audio/Video card by MichaelKristopeit193 · · Score: 0

      might have spoke too soon.... this looks promising

    4. Re:What I want is an Audio/Video card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Pioneer VSX-520-K is a similar price and is a much nicer unit. It also has HDMI switching.

    5. Re:What I want is an Audio/Video card by MichaelKristopeit211 · · Score: 1
      yeah, thanks, 6 months ago when i did some research i couldn't find any of these. as every device i have supports HDMI using the highest audio and video settings my displays and speakers can support, all through a single cable per device, it is the obvious solution. the i just want 100W per channel, 5.1 with line out for powered subwoofer, with 4 HDMI ins, 1 HDMI out, with intelligently switched low power passthrough while turned off. as my speakers are sony and ps3 is sony, a sony branded product would be assumed to take advantage of the peripheral devices.

      the problem is such a device would be extremely cheap to produce and destroy the high end audio market and other cabling standards. the SPDIF guys would levy sanctions. the digital component guys would hypocritically argue bandwidth where none is required.

    6. Re:What I want is an Audio/Video card by MichaelKristopeit211 · · Score: 1
      he doesn't want support to play digital media that can be decoded and transmitted over HDMI... he wants the PC to inject the audio from the sound chips into the HDMI stream for the monitor... i haven't bought a high end video card in a while, but my last one had an internal jumper to the sound card that allowed input and output of the sound signal through the breakout junction box... so it ended up being DVI+stereo RCA, but from there to an HDMI combined signal is trivial, so i'm sure there are already cards on the market.

      i noticed the new mac mini has HDMI now... is that just video or audio as well?

    7. Re:What I want is an Audio/Video card by MichaelKristopeit211 · · Score: 1
  86. Re:Phirst phoast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To protect the audio 'data' with Protected Audio Pathways required MS to move all audio processing into software since Vista. All sound cards do now is DAC and outputting.

  87. uh yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me know when Realtek starts integrating an actual YMF262 chip to their audio codecs. Until then i'll stick with my Yamaha pci sound card.

  88. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by mapuo · · Score: 1

    That's easy. If the balls are clapping it's porn.

  89. Re: SB Audigy, etc. by Nimey · · Score: 1

    You've been able to get ~$30 junk cards from Creative for /years/. Used to be stuff like the SB16 PCI, now it's that old Audigy.

    You'd get better results from the cheaper Asus card mentioned in TFA, and the price is the same. Drivers are, as usual, provided by Asus and are occasionally updated - I'm running a Xonar DX and have been mostly pleased with it; the only thing I can honestly complain about is that Fallout 3 crashes more often when I've got the EAX 5.0 emulation enabled.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  90. I second that, even for XP32 by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    game forums are littered with comments about Realtek cards crashing games. I've got sound accelleration turned to 'Basic' in dxdiag to work around most of it, but I lose a lot of cool effects. I'm still too cheap to spring for an extra soundcard, but yeah, Realteks are unstable as heck...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I second that, even for XP32 by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Reading these comments about Realtek as being unstable make me laugh. Creative Labs certainly hasn't been all that great in putting out stable drivers either. So far they seem to be working for me though.

  91. Quality audio for PCs by steveha · · Score: 1

    I know someone who used to be a senior audio guy at Microsoft. While he was there, he tried to get improved standards for motherboard audio: for example, he wanted the signal-to-noise ratio to be similar to what you can get on a $20 portable music player. For a while, the "Designed for Windows" sticker required basic quality from the onboard audio. There was fierce pushback from some big names in industry (I won't name names unless he tells me it's okay to do so) and in the end, Microsoft relented. Margins are thin in the PC business, and they insisted on the right to use cheap (i.e., lousy) audio components.

    I am not at all surprised that you can make a big improvement by spending $30 on a sound card. At work, we don't use motherboard audio at all; we usually use USB or FireWire audio devices. (I do sometimes use the built-in audio on a Mac laptop. Apple seems to have spent the extra five cents or whatever it is, and used decent audio parts.)

    For $30 or less, you can get a USB audio device that will give you nice clean stereo. I have been buying the Turtle Beach Audio Advantage; they changed the design since I bought one but I'll bet the quality is still fine.

    For multichannel playback, you can get a $100 device made by ESI called the GigaPort HD. The audio quality is fine, but the drivers sometimes have issues. For $400 to $500 you can get an Edirol UA-101 (or maybe it's branded as a "Cakewalk" UA-101); that has 10 channels in and 10 channels out (8 analog and an optical S/PDIF).

    By the way, for headphones, I really like the Sennheiser HD555 headphones that were mentioned in TFA. Lightweight, comfortable, excellent quality, and very reasonably priced (under $90 on Amazon last I checked).

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  92. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by aevan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hmmm.... remember those old television shows where the narrator was physically present in the shot, while the action froze?

    Yeah, Betty White sitting on a chair right beside the action, narrating over a cup of tea...I could watch that.

  93. Onboard is fine, but.... by santax · · Score: 1

    When you start recording you will need better latency. Not for the playback, but for the recording. I have yet to see onboard audio with acceptable latency for recording and realtime (!) monitoring. Having said that: for your mp3's and games, for heavens sake, keep your money in the pocket!

  94. One of the best cards out there is internal by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The Lynx Two is one of the lowest noise, highest dynamic range cards on the market and it is an internal solution. Despite being in the PC, and of course entirely powered by it, the noise is almost non existent.

  95. "Does it work?" trumps listener tests.... by rknop · · Score: 1

    Heh... of course when the on-board sound card simply *doesn't work* with something (I'm thinking Second Life Voice under Linux, which granted is a huge mess because of the way it's put together), and it does with an add-on card or USB card, then, yeah, I can sure as heck tell a difference! I haven't needed expensive cards for the add-on, just something that doesn't use the Intel chipset.

    1. Re:"Does it work?" trumps listener tests.... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Onboard sound (Nvidia MCP61 Realek ALC 662) works fine with SL voice on Linux, at least with pulseaudio on Fedora 12, 13, and 14. You're probably missing a 686 lib if you're running 64-bit.

  96. Sure by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Because they make the only hardware accelerated consumer soundcards out there. Now does that matter? Well it depends on what you do. If you don't play games then no it doesn't. If you do it depends on the game. Some games do not use hardware sound features at all, period. The Source Engine games are like this. Everything is done in software, all cards are equal otherwise. Other games can use hardware if available, but will fall back to software otherwise and have pretty much the same features. WoW is like this. It can use hardware, but it doesn't really change the quality much, just maybe gives a tiny performance boost. Still others only perform well with hardware. Mass Effect 1 is like this. With a hardware OpenAL soundcard, you get full 5.1 sound with all sorts of effects like occlusion, reverberation, etc. Without one, you get simple stereo sound.

    So sure, some people still want that because they play games that makes use of it and nobody else supports it. To the extent you find any support at all from other cards it is software emulation and has bugs. Only Creative does it in hardware and fully supports OpenAL and EAX (which is because those are Creative standards).

    1. Re:Sure by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Most internal soundcards don't do Dolby Digital Live or DTS Interactive meaning only 2.0 sound out via S/PDIF.

      Preetty much all of the recent Realtek chipsets hande DD Live (now called Dolby Home Theater)...it's just a matter of whether the motherboard manufacturer pays for the license. DTS licensing is a lot more, so they probably won't widely support that any time in the near future.

    2. Re:Sure by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      I know they can it is a matter of if they do. That I find is pretty rare. Of course there doesn't seem to be the option to just pay it yourself, and thus people are left with just buying an external card.

    3. Re:Sure by cynyr · · Score: 1

      could you provide a list of modern games(last 3-5 years) that *require* "hardware sound acceleration"?

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  97. Sure by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One reason is simply quality. The built in soundcards are fine, but they are optimized for cost, not quality. I had that problem at work. Figured I'd use the built in soundcard since I wasn't doing anything really critical. However it had an audible hiss with my headphones plugged in. It couldn't handle the low impedance load well, and an audible hiss was the result. Really annoying.

    Another can be compatibility issues. Sometimes internal cards fall over on certain things for whatever reason. I again had this problem at work with a newer system. The quality was acceptable, but it kept skipping, dropping audio, and so on in certain circumstances. Had to do with using pro software that talked to it via kernel streaming. It supported that (all WDM soundcards do by definition) but had problems. Getting another card fixed the issue.

    Yet another is features. Perhaps you want outputs not supported by your card. Most internal soundcards don't do Dolby Digital Live or DTS Interactive meaning only 2.0 sound out via S/PDIF. Well maybe you want to do 5.1 digitally to your receiver (since most receivers don't do any advanced processing on analogue signals). So you get a card that does support it.

    Games would be still another reason. There are a lot of games out there that use hardware sound acceleration if available, and some that demand it. While that means confining yourself to cards with Creative Labs processors (cards from Creative or Auzentech) lots of people go for that. In some cases it is just a minor speed increase and not really worth it, in others the game demands hardware to give you good quality sound.

    So while it is far from universal, it isn't all that uncommon either.

  98. yes by unity100 · · Score: 1

    fatalities were bad. anything that came after the x-treme music, was bad. i kinda remember they changed something with the chip production or someting back then, or their contractor. x-treme musics were not being produced, they were hard to find, everyone was looking for them online and offline.

  99. problem solved by AdamWill · · Score: 1

    S/PDIF output to a decent amp from either a good old Chaintech AV710 or a Turtle Beach USB. all problems ever, solved, I'll take my consulting fee now, thanks.

    (bit hard to buy the AV710s these days, sadly. fortunately for me, I have a stockpile.)

  100. DACmagic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a Cambridge USB DACmagic connected to a Dennon stereo with Paradigm atom speakers, also Klipsch towers in the living room. It's probably a more expensive way to go but I use it for movies and music only, no games. And it sounds awsome!

  101. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That, and the occasional cheering.

  102. I guess onboard sound must be better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    than many in my collection of surplus and Fry's loss-leader cards. I record for a (perpetually broke) Church using Audacity, so I built as much as I could as cheaply as I could. I have seen some interesting things on the waveform display. Two that come to mind-

    1. A card that with enough difference in gain between the top and bottom half of the waveform to be easily visible on the waveform display.

    2. A card that is visibly offset from 0 (high pass filter at 1Hz takes care of this).

  103. Thief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This game was the prime example of what an advanced sound card could do. I miss the 3D sound experience very much. Sadly, these new operating systems are moving further and further away from things like that. You'll have to pry my Sound Blaster Live! and Windows 98 from my cold, dead hands.

  104. Don't you people know anything? by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

    More expensive things are always better

    --
    I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
  105. That's not how you do a blind test. by radarsat1 · · Score: 1

    I clicked on the blind listening test link expecting to see some statistics, but instead we just got a bunch of opinions that may or may not mean anything. (And some admission of non-blindness in the case of detectable hiss, meaning they listened to the cards before starting the blind test.)

    You can't do a blind listening test without taking down some numbers and comparing them to the probability of 50%. If the results are more significantly likely than chance, you can't conclude anything.

    Frankly, I'm disappointed, since this could have been the most useful part of the discussion.

  106. The sound quality is a lie by Zingledot · · Score: 1

    The only possibility of better quality sound might be USB devices, because the signal is purely digital until converted in the external box - or some kind of digital wireless technology that completely separates the PC from the DAC and amp without introducing noise or lost bits. I challenge anyone to find an internal sound card that provides the quality they are looking for, because it doesn't exist. Every consumer sound card on the market up-samples, so it is reprocessing the sound internally before pushing it out, and this is creating noise. Some professional equipment MIGHT not do this, but you can't always rely on their spec page to tell you about this specific feature(I know, I've bought a midiman sound card). This internal processing is the reason I've gone as far as pushing out S/PDIF do an external $300 DAC, and still got background noise. If the analog conversion is happening in a noisy environment, then that's as good as it'll get. You either learn to put up with it, or start going for really specialized setups.

  107. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Stregano · · Score: 1

    You mean like in Saved By the Bell where Zack Morris would do a freeze frame to explain stuff? I guess whatever you like since you already want Betty White in there. Please, for the love of God, make sure it is a time when the volume is down (maybe if you are unsure, the article is for you so you can upgrade your sound card). If I was your neighbor, I would never want to hear that coming from your apartment

    --
    The world is how you make it
  108. An audiophile would never... by zbobet2012 · · Score: 1

    feed an analog source directly off of a PC. Not a true audiophile anyways. The reality is any integrated PC sound card with integrated optical out (S/PDIF Over TOSLINK) is fine for the job. Why? Because a true audiophile is going to keep digital digital until it hits the pre-amp. While it is true that one card may out perform the other in the D to A conversion most people are going to notice more out of a decent pair of speakers than any money spent on a new card. On the other hand the audiophiles are going to be running a TOSLINK to the back of the pre-amp and than out from there on XLR cables to the amps. Generally amps that are kept as close as possible to the speakers as well.

    A PC sound card outputting to a pair of headphones is a crap thing to test. The common 3.5mm headphone cables are utterly terrible at noise rejection (don't you love when you can hear your cellphone receiving a text?). They also run across a lost of noisy crap to get your ears (power-supply, monitor, and numerous other devices).

    The key to true audio quality is to keep it digital as long as possible, and make as much of the analog runs as possible balanced.

    The sad thing is that this kind of crap is endemic to the audio market as a whole. Audio is for the most part simple physics.

  109. Yes by Chadster · · Score: 0

    I use the built-in 5.1 with speakers positioned for HTPC (and it's good enough - most action movies have too much noise anyway ) and a USB device for PC speakers next to the monitor.

  110. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    I don't get why so many people like Betty White. But then again, I don't understand Steven Wright's allure either, so...

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  111. Re:A different question - do I need a "gaming" car by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    There's a psychoacoustic model that is *very* convincing. Thanks to our evolution as hunters and/or prey animals we have evolved a sensitivity to variations in the time, frequency, and dynamic domains that we interpret as "location." The effect is really pretty amazing, especially when it is combined with visual cues to reinforce the illusion.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  112. You're overprescribing. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    If you are in the really cheap seats, you should probably spend whatever audio money you have on speakers or headphones that don't utterly suck.

    No, I have to disagree on this excessively general prescription (even though you did stick the "probably" in there). I've heard on-board audio that was so bad that clearly it was more important to replace the audio output than to upgrade the headphones or speakers. I had a ThinkPad once whose output was very hissy and had interference from other components in the system, and it was all clearly audible with crappy headphones.

    Basically, the most general prescription that can be made is to identify the weak link and upgrade that first. If you hear hiss or interference, get a reasonable sound card. It doesn't have to be fancy; it just has to be competent.

  113. DDL by headhot · · Score: 1

    Most onboard cards don't do dolby digital live. If you want discrete 5.1 sound in your games through a real amp via optical or digital coax, you going to need DDL.

  114. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Billlagr · · Score: 1

    You're thinking of womens' beach volleyball

  115. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But your ad-homonym argument doesn't refute his point.

  116. Depends. by antdude · · Score: 1

    Yes if you want high end quality (recording studio), hardware features (EAX for games and not software emulation), etc. I bought an Audigy 2 ZS for games. I don't think I will get another SB card since future EAX seems to be dimming or already gone especially under Vista and Windows 7.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  117. Re:A different question - do I need a "gaming" car by DarkXale · · Score: 1

    Virtualized surround. Works quite well.

  118. Re:Phirst phoast by oldhack · · Score: 1

    Digital/computer stuff has gotten quite cheap, but decent quality MIDI controllers - i.e., mechanical interface - remains bit pricey, even with Chinese manufacturing, especially for student budget.

    Of course, compared to before, you can set up pro quality recording setup for fraction.

    Which uni did you work with?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  119. Doesn't take much to be noticeable by sakti · · Score: 1

    After getting a nice pair of Sennheiser headphones I was very disappointed in the sound quality of both my old Audigy 2 ZS and the on-board sound. There was a noticeable, high-pitched buzz all the time that was very annoying.

    Purchased a HT Omega Striker and it sounds MUCH better. Not just no buzz but it just sounded better overall, particularly with the headphones. Quite a difference.

    --
    "It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
  120. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by hedwards · · Score: 1

    So, you learn to identify something that's known to be fake? It's a pretty good bet that if your girlfriend sounds like a woman in a porn vid that she's faking it.

  121. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by hedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

    Generally in porn, the racket gets held in other ways, if you catch my drift. Also, you usually don't get an odd number of balls.

  122. Decrete sound by Sasha-Whitefur · · Score: 1

    If you want Sound Blaster Compatibility, the integrated sound doesn't have it.

  123. Re:Creative X-FI is far better than my onboard aud by cryoknight · · Score: 0

    After playing Gothic2 for every waking non-working moment, for about a month, I noticed a HUGE difference in the audio after popping in the X-Fi. Upgraded from the Audigy 2.

    After installing Vista, I had to scrap my Creative X-fi since they just wouldn't put out non-crackly drivers for far too long, and replaced it with an Auzentech Prelude (uses the X-Fi chipset). Auzentech made drivers that worked really well. Except for the line-in, apparently. I wonder if they've fixed that yet.

  124. Re:Phirst phoast by crazybilly · · Score: 1
    The problem I run into is that my primary venues for listening to music and podcasts (both of which I enjoy very much) are not particularly conducive to doing so: either in the office, where I have to keep the music low or in the car, where tire/road noise eats 50% of the sound.

    With that in mind 128 kbps IS perfectly acceptable--even with flac, I CAN'T turn it up loud enough to hear ANYTHING distinctly, so there's no sense in wasting disk space on quality I'll never hear.

    I don't enjoy my musical predicament nor think it's a good way to "listen" to music, but it's where I'm at right now and I'm guessing it's not particularly uncommon.

  125. If you want to record, it would be wise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find the RealTek HD chipset on my motherboard is ok for playing sounds. But in terms of recording, it seriously blows chunks. It doesn't properly separate the audio channels in regards to inputs. Instead you get one single combined volume adjuster on the recording side for mic, line-in, waveout, etc. Which means if you want the volume on the mic louder when recording something like a screen capture video for something such as a tutorial on YouTube, don't be too surprised when all the computer generated sound (waveout) is BILLY FUCKING MAYS LOUD!111!!! (may he R.I.P.) and sounds like complete ass because it's clipping to the extreme. (And no, mic-boost or whatever that option is doesn't always solve everything.) In addition to sound problems when using video capture software, it also makes doing some things with Audacity sound like ass. Which is no fault of that software, because I know it works perfectly on other computers. If their chipset does this, then I know Realtek is not something I'd ever buy intentionally in the way of soundcards because of this.

    Of course Realtek HD chipset is quirky because it also has a digital audio input feature, which may be actually be nice. Yet in my case it goes unused. Nor do I have any high expectations considering how recording has gone using the more common inputs. If people are trying to be cheap in the first place by using the onboard sound, a feature aspect which requires additional (and possibly expensive) external hardware seems counter productive. If I really wanted to spend extra money for audio stuff, wouldn't I be more likely to get a quality external soundcard? Damn skippy! If audio recording is considered important enough, a decent sound card would be the first thing I'd get.

    I still think having separate channel levels for recording would be a big improvement. Sometimes I wonder about the stupidity of the design, is Realtek simply being really cheap or did the media mafia anti-piracy assholes have any influence on the design decisions. Is it actually the hardware? Or is it some seriously gimped firmware/drivers?

  126. I do it for the cheap. by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    I just have a LCD monitor that has a line output that can take the signal from my HDMI video card, it ouputs the digital signal across my sound card and it doesn't get DAC converted until it hits my monitor. Clear and crisp and a whole lot better.

    And I don't even NEED a sound card as it is done through HDMI.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  127. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "repairman fixing the cable"

    I think I've seen that movie too! :)

  128. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? You think two women batting balls around is porn? Well, er, um. Oh never mind.

  129. Don't feed the troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ignore MichaelKristopeit198. That user is a retarded troll. Trolls all threads.....

  130. mmx or sse2 or whatever they call it today by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Mmx came out with the pentium 133 mhz and this was a BIG DEAL.The previous posters did not have sse or mmx 1 or 2 with their CPUs. Intel saw mp3s back in 96 and put some of the long 2 bit media streams and added hardware acceleration. This would explain part of the low cpu utilization. Also you could of had hardware sound cards. Today they are software based so I do not know how a good sound card would help. I will read the article tomorrow. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are software only (as far as I know).

    Many mp3s were encoded with only 2 channels and 16hz which were a lot less

  131. Re:Phirst phoast by aitikin · · Score: 1

    Are you confusing Audio Data Compression with Dynamic Range Compression? They're completely different things. Also, turning things up create a fake belief that they sound better, as an aside.

    Sometime, if you ever have the time, you should try taking a FLAC file, compressing a copy to MP3, AAC, or any other codec you like, inverting the phase in something like Audacity and play it against the original. You'll hear all the things that you're missing in the MP3.

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  132. Re:Phirst phoast by adolf · · Score: 1

    Great - so, it's the 80's all over again.

    We grew out of that. We'll do it again.

    *shrug*

  133. They always forget to test for power supply noise by ModelX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    PC audio testers always forget to test for the influence of power supply on output noise. I noticed simply changing the power supply makes a big difference to the output noise level. Also some ventilators and other PC components draw current in bursts so there are nice clicks on transitions. This will affect both on-board sound and internal audio cards. I can tolerate a few decibels of white noise, but I don't like to feel like a doctor listening to PC internals. So I'd like to know how an audio component performs in worst case power supply scenario.

  134. Re:Phirst phoast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, grew out of it and into things like built-in computer and cell phone speakers.

  135. Re:Phirst phoast by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

    Gah, audiophiles...

    The average quality of the stuff people are listening to has gone up drastically over the last few decades. When I was young, we used to listen to tape recorded from the freakin' radio on nasty Walkman earbuds. You could hardly hear it! At home, most people I knew had a tape deck/record player. I've played around with them now, and they sound terrible. Combine that with the fact that most people''s record collections were scratched, and the listening experience is far inferior to what most people seem to have today.

    Look, you like spending hundreds/thousands to get that extra 5% out of your music, okay, that's fine. But this constant bitching about how everyone who doesn't is some sort of backward buffoon is really grating.

  136. Re:Phirst phoast by dargaud · · Score: 1

    most have never heard music on anything better than crappy cheap earbuds or, at best, a poorly configured home theater system

    I could certainly afford a much better sound system than what I use, but I can't because:
    1 - in a car or public transportation it's not worth it with the amount of noise going on. Better isolation of earbuds and active noise cancellation make a difference though.
    2 - I live in an appartment so I cannot push the volume up. And at low volume there's not much difference.
    3 - how often do you actively listen to music? Me, almost never, I usually put it on while doing something. So I'm not concentrating on the fine details of the highs or whatever
    In other words, you are right but that's not how it works.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  137. Long Live Aureal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have still yet to find a gaming audio card that can reproduce spacial 3D sound as well as my old, well loved Aureal Vortex 3D card. I got banned from a Counter-Strike server back in the day because I could track people through walls perfectly by the noise they made. Creative bought them 10 years ago (after bankrupting them with legal fees in court) and supposedly integrated their technology into their own cards, but I've still yet to experience 3D audio on any of their cards that was as good as my old Aureal. I've still got it packed in a box somewhere because I can't bring myself to throw it out.

  138. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    Betty White is full of awesome and win! You know how people make jokes about the awesomeness of Chuck Norris? Well Betty White really is awesome. She's freaking hilarious in interviews.

  139. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by stubob · · Score: 1

    Or Morgan Freeman.

    --
    Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
  140. Nicely begging the question by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    So, people like Betty White because she's awesome and funny?

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  141. Re:Discrete *wink* *wink* sound card? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Generally in porn, the racket gets held in other ways, if you catch my drift. Also, you usually don't get an odd number of balls.

    *cough* Tom Green *cough*

  142. Re:A different question - do I need a "gaming" car by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    What you wanted was an Aureal A3D 2 card. Unfortunately, Creative Labs bought them, and buried them.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  143. Re:Phirst phoast by aitikin · · Score: 1

    Gah, audiophiles...

    Gah, misunderstanding morons.

    I'm a recording engineer. I'm not an audiophile. I listen to things on everything from crappy 1993 car stereo systems to multi-thousand dollar sound systems. And I might point out the difference is a lot more than 5%. Now, the difference between my personal $500 sound system and the multi-thousand dollar systems I work on does not justify the price difference for anyone I know, but that's the privilege of a university's purchasing power.

    Did I say that everyone who doesn't spend a fortune on music is a buffoon? No. I said that the people who claim to care about their music and love their music, listening on crappy computer speakers are pathetically wrong on what they're hearing, as well as the people who have never heard a CD quality source or a good Vinyl Record source.

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  144. Re:Phirst phoast by aitikin · · Score: 1

    I could certainly afford a much better sound system than what I use, but I can't because:

    I'll address each point inline with your's.

    1 - in a car or public transportation it's not worth it with the amount of noise going on. Better isolation of earbuds and active noise cancellation make a difference though.

    I use a Klipsch isolating headset I got from Tiger Direct on one of their sales for $30. Sounds great and I can listen to music at half the volume of the stock Palm Pre headset, and still hear a significant difference in quality.

    2 - I live in an appartment so I cannot push the volume up. And at low volume there's not much difference.

    Ironic because at low volumes is where I hear the most significant difference between a high quality system and a cheap crappy one. Even if this reasoning is good, a pair of Grados is not that expensive.

    3 - how often do you actively listen to music? Me, almost never, I usually put it on while doing something. So I'm not concentrating on the fine details of the highs or whatever

    And how often do you actively watch TV? Everyone I know has a TV going on in the background while doing something else, but they'll still dump thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars into a "Home Theater" system with top of the line Blu-Ray player and 60" 1080p, but neglect to get anything better than the cheapest surround sound system they can find and then neglect to configure it.

    In other words, you are right but that's not how it works.

    ...and my point is that it the two should not be mutually exclusive. In the 70s you could find people who would literally just sit down and listen to tape loops for hours. Granted they were often in some altered state of mind, but still, they would focus on hearing every subtle nuance in the music before they stopped. Now, we don't even care that there's the nastiest autotune on vocals making it sound like it's robotic because people can't sing but they want to sound "perfect" (and I'm not talking about T Pain on that one).

    <soapbox>My point in all of this is that, music should not be the bastard child of urbanization, used only to block out the sounds of the world around you. It should be something that you sit down with the intention to enjoy. The more people ignore that, the crappy it will get. I just hope that it will end up with a renaissance of sorts, with people realizing that this stuff really is getting bad and starting to consider that the money they're investing in a sound system isn't going to waste. </soapbox>

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  145. Re:Phirst phoast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This ^

    It is unfortunate that most people use crap recordings with crap equipment to test their equipment.

    The common public doesn't know audio quality because they have never experienced it. Listening to music in your car or with $10 speakers isn't going to determine anything... Try using lossless audio with $300 headphones.

  146. So you want the indiscreet sound card? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Ok, indiscreet isn't spelled exactly the opposite of discrete, but it's on the continuum.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  147. Re:Phirst phoast by BigSes · · Score: 1

    And that is why, at a recent AES conference there was a great little speech given about how Audio is the only industry that eats its young. If it doesn't matter to the average consumer how it sounds, than we will progressively get worse and worse quality audio considered passable. It's sad enough that people are preferring the sound of MP3s and most have never heard music on anything better than crappy cheap earbuds or, at best, a poorly configured home theater system, yet they claim to love their music. If I had a nickel for every time I've sat someone down in front of a decent quality sound system (think $500 system, counting receiver and speakers or receiver and headphones) and played them an album that they, "know inside and out" and they find something new that they've heard before, I would be able to afford the amazing speakers that a friend works with. Let's be honest, as long as people consider iTunes 128 kbps AAC to be, "High Quality" and 256 kbps AAC to be, "Highest Quality" with 128 MP3 being acceptable, it doesn't matter how expensive your soundcard is, it won't sound good.

    Why does it matter? If the listener is happy, who cares. Oh yeah, by the way, $500 is far from impressive. What, did you pick up a home theatre in a box deal? If you run a $3000 rig a home for music and $1000 setup in your car and can't stand the sound from your ear buds, maybe you are just being a pretentious asshole. Even better, if you are as familiar with sound quality as you posture to be, you would know, and accept, the difference. Instead, you take the side that you know better than everyone else. Thanks, very helpful. "Loving music" has fuck-all to do with sound quality. I suppose those who enjoyed the early days of radio didn't love their music?

  148. Re:Phirst phoast by adolf · · Score: 1

    I think you missed the 90s.

  149. Re:Phirst phoast by dargaud · · Score: 1

    And how often do you actively watch TV?

    I haven't for the last 24 years, actively or passively. I'd rather listen to music.

    Now, we don't even care that there's the nastiest autotune on vocals

    Which is why I prefer atrocious death-metal 'singers' to autotuned pop crap any day.

    My point in all of this is that, music should not be the bastard child of urbanization, used only to block out the sounds of the world around you

    Which takes me kind of off-topic about fake motor sounds being added to recent models of electric cars. We had a chance of getting the cities a little more quiet, but now, we'd rather pile on the crap. Why not make electric cars stink of petrol fumes while we are at it ?!?

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  150. Re:Phirst phoast by aitikin · · Score: 1

    And for lack of a better response to all those points, I applaud you.

    Granted I'm not a fan of death metal in anyway, but I had a funk producer tell me that the vocals needed to be in tune so he autotuned them and I almost slapped him... Totally agree on the electric cars remark...

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
  151. Re:Phirst phoast by dargaud · · Score: 1

    I'll just add one last thing, I'm not averse to upgrading sound quality as I just got an interesting device, the Asus uBoom, to get rid of the wifi-induced noise of the embedded sound card on my old laptop. Easy to move along with the laptop (within my home!) as it's only one piece (and 2 cables) and contains the USB sound card. Not a revolution though.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  152. Depends on support by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    My last computer build I bought some nice higher end speakers that supported Optical In. My motherboard didn't. So I bought a sound card that did. I think it cost me 30$. Other than situations like that I would say no, you don't really need a sound card. Years ago it was the difference between normal sound and the 8-bit noises that the "PC Speaker" would make. Now every motherboard pretty much comes with integrated sound that is good enough for the average user.

    I remember seeing a few years back a motherboard with integrated sound using vacuum tubes for audiophiles which was a pretty interesting idea. Not sure how well it sold though, if I were a betting man, I would say it didn't.

  153. DAW... by colin_faber · · Score: 1

    Generally consumer based audio cards are no better than the on board ones. There is nearly no difference in sound quality and in many cases the same DAC's are used. That said, prosumer and professional grade cards are really the only ones suitable for DAW systems. The consumer based cards lack features such as XLR input, True TOS input and output, as well as having extremely responsive DACs which provide very low latency. Try setting up a JACK echo effect on your home PC soundcard and you will quickly realise that it's just not up to the task.

  154. I agree with you (and this article) by djnforce9 · · Score: 1

    I was originally told by the person who built my computer how great on-board cards have become and how there is no need for a dedicated one. That was quickly shot down when I found out not only how particularly low the quality was (It was a SoundMax attached to an "Asus P5E3 Deluxe" mother board), but that I didn't have any proper support for environmental effects used in games (e.g. EAX) and OpenAL didn't work very well either (i.e. it would drastically reduce performance/framerate and/or sound would become very choppy). I even remember sound effects cutting out like crazy in Bioshock which was very annoying.

    I also agree with the article about "business class" boards. This explains why the school computers always had MUCH higher quality audio from their respective on-board sound card than what I was getting from my gaming rig. Nowadays, I have an external "Sound Blaster X-Fi" (i.e. Model No. SB1090 which are surprisingly popular given how often they become sold out) which works great because it has all the perks of its internal counterpart with the advantage of being placed outside of the case (thus there is no electrical interference). Yes, it can potentially be a CPU hog (since it is a USB sound device and all), but I am only using stereo headphones (as opposed to a 5+ channel setup) and plus I have a very fast CPU.

    I just wish the article covered more on the Soundblaster X-Fi. It seemed to mention it but then focus on the Asus board far too much. I know the Asus one is a far better sound card but it would have still been nice to have both compared.