Sound Card vs Onboard

[Zatharus]

Yes but not hear a difference. That is my point.

We haven't encountered any horrible clocks. We've measured clock jitter but never encountered the slightest bit of audible change caused by it. Remember clock jitter is measured in PICO seconds. Meaningless to the ear.

Those statements speak volumes of our professional differences. I have taught for years, and it has been my experience, that 80-90% of the human populace cannot tell the specific difference between varying audio qualities, but many can tell that there is some difference. They just can't quantify it.

Clock jitter does have a significant impact on what you hear. Granted, at very low levels, most people will not hear it (or care about it). Some people will. Those pico-seconds can make a noticeable difference to some. The human auditory system is surprisingly complex for how limited it is compared to some of the animal kingdom. Stereo imaging, for one, can be greatly affected by extremely slight differences in timing. Proper frequency reproduction is another example. Considering this to be due to just a placebo effect is not accurate.

I agree with mightymilk here in that you are generalizing too much.

While a 24 bit DAC playing back audio that was digitized at 24 bits will have a lower noise floor, 16 bit digital audio still has an inaudible noise floor so it doesn't really matter much. The lower noise floor is measured but not heard.

Doesn't matter much? Come now...you must be joking?

If you involve dithering you can lower the perceived noise floor significantly in some instances. But, with dithering out of the equation, the difference between true 16bit and 24bit signals is rather large.

Don't confuse measurable differences with audible differences. All audible differences are measurable but not all measurable differences are audible. I've only been talking about audible differences. I have a lot expertise at this. I really have done years worth of testing using proper scientific method. I promise I'm not kidding you.

I believe that you are not trying to kid me. I also agree whole-heartedly that not all measurable differences are audible. That has not been my point.

It does sound like you have some experience in this field. I do not intend to get into a "who's better" contest. I am not sure who in this case would have more experience overall. This has been my profession for years, and your statements thus far tell me that your understanding of digital audio theory is incomplete.

Depends. I needed a dedicated, high-end card because my onboard could not produce 5.1 sound via optical out, only stereo. I so like some of the neat features the X-Fi offers for headphones though, such as CMSS-3D.

Very good point. I have enjoyed the Dolby Live function on my on-board audio for simple surround to a theater system, but many on-board systems do not have this. The CMSS-3D processing can also provide a novel, wider semi-surround audio field which can be useful in games.

 

[fmw]

"Doesn't matter much? Come now...you must be joking?

If you involve dithering you can lower the perceived noise floor significantly in some instances. But, with dithering out of the equation, the difference between true 16bit and 24bit signals is rather large."

Large? How would you quantify that? Would you agree that the noise floor in a 16 bit recording is well over 100 db down and that makes it inaudible? If not, then tell me where the point of audibility begins. In our tests most people can't hear a 70db noise floor. I can't tell you the hours we've spent comparing 24 bit and 16 bit audio. No difference in audibility. Not even a little.

You continue to argue from the point of view of graphs and measurements and I'm arguing from a perspective of audibility. Until you resolve that you won't be able to accept what I'm saying. I understand what you're saying and it is correct in terms of measurements. It is not correct in terms of audibility.

We've tested these things with scores and scores of listeners. "Hearing acuity" - if such a thing exists - doesn't factor in. We've even tested that with a borrowed audiological testing system used by the local hospital.

I'm tired of this one. After of 12 or 13 years of arguing with people who haven't done the tests, I've learned to tire quickly of it. No sense in going on. One day perhaps you will do some bias controlled tests yourself and then you'll better understand what I'm talking about. I can prove what I say and have done so time and time again much to the amazement of audio designers and engineers who have contributed to our tests. If you think buying a different DAC will improve your sound, then help yourself.

 

[PunterCam]

The only way to test for a difference in sound quality is to do a bias controlled A/B comparison. That is very hard to do. Simply putting in a sound card and saying "Ah, that sounds better" is very meaningless. No level matching. No bias control. It is simply hearing better sound because you expect to hear better sound. We call it the placebo effect. I've done over 10 years of bias controlled listening tests. I can tell you that modern DAC's all "sound" the same. They simply do. It isn't opinion. It's test results.

An ouboard sound card is likely to provide more features and more connectivity but, unfortunately, no improvement in sound quality. I've tested on board DAC's against professional level DAC's costing 1000's of dollars. No difference in sonics. Other differences to be sure but not a sonic difference with digital music playback.

I can prove what I say if you want to come here to get the demo or pay me to travel somewhere else to do it. The cheaper approach is simply to buy a sound card and convince yourself it's better.

The statement about DACs is not true. It's these converters that make all the difference - it's the only reason high end digital equipment even exists. I've been running a digital/analogue setup of Protools and an old Neve mixing desk for a few years now, using the digidesign 192 interfaces. Recently, in an attempt the save money, I got hold of some SSL interfaces (which are half the price but half the sample rate (96k vs 192k). Using two mac pros, running the same session and sample rate but with the different hardware I compared them side by side. The difference was noticeable - my 12 year old brother picked out the 192s as 'better'.

DACs are the only part of a digital setup that can make a difference to the sound. Digital is digital; it is what it is. Making the conversion is everything.

In relation to Bacon's question - all you need is a digital output. I would wager the z5500s DACs are better than the onboards.

 

[fmw]

The statement about DACs is not true. It's these converters that make all the difference - it's the only reason high end digital equipment even exists. I've been running a digital/analogue setup of Protools and an old Neve mixing desk for a few years now, using the digidesign 192 interfaces. Recently, in an attempt the save money, I got hold of some SSL interfaces (which are half the price but half the sample rate (96k vs 192k). Using two mac pros, running the same session and sample rate but with the different hardware I compared them side by side. The difference was noticeable - my 12 year old brother picked out the 192s as 'better'.

DACs are the only part of a digital setup that can make a difference to the sound. Digital is digital; it is what it is. Making the conversion is everything.

In relation to Bacon's question - all you need is a digital output. I would wager the z5500s DACs are better than the onboards.

I see. And you have some test results to back that up? Did your 12 year old brother undergo a bias controlled, level matched comparison? Of course not. If that were the case, he wouldn't have heard any difference. It amazes me how human arrogance refuses to understand how bias affects hearing. I've been doing this for years and people make claims about what they can and can't hear and continue to do so even after having been proven wrong. I've had test subjects say they had a bad day or they drank too much coffee or that the tests weren't valid for one reason or another. It has amazed me for years. I won't even get into why "high end" audio equipment exists. You wouldn't want to read it.

 

[Zatharus]

fmw:

Please forgive me as my objective has apparently not been clear. This has gotten well out of hand and beyond the original scope of the thread and most likely this forum's audience.

I do see that we are coming from different perspectives and professional experiences on this. I have also stated several times that I agree with you on the audibility factor. What I had intended to correct/contest was the insistence that subjective tests prove an end all means of defining quality and the direct nay saying that DAC quality has no effect at all. Such sweeping generalizations are what raise my incredulity.

I realize you feel very strongly about this and are convinced that there is no need to pay for extremely precise audio equipment since the benifits observed by you and your test subjects is negligable. That is fine, and I do not begrudge you that choice. I also tend to be quite picky about my professional gear due to my background as an audio engineer and instructor. My justifications come from my own subjective experiences and extensive research into the electronics involved.

Please excuse me if my tenacity comes off as a harsh opposition. I completely understand that we have entered the realm of comparing apples and oranges here. All said, I am genuinely interested in hearing the details of the tests you have conducted and continuing a similar discourse in private.

 

[realmike15]

on a side note, i'm happy to see so many Pro Audio enthusiasts on these boards. you don't see much discussion here about it, nice to see some familiar interests.

 

[Okedokey]

So after all the pro wank, is he to get a dedicated card or not?

Answer, yes.

 

[Bacon]

So after all the pro wank, is he to get a dedicated card or not?

Answer, yes.

Thank you, lol.

 

[Aastii]

Could a soundcard give higher fram rates in games?

I ask this because if you have a game and have no sound on, it has higher FPS than the game with because you need to process less. If you have a sound card, will that process the sound alongside or instead of the CPU and share or take the load from it? I've never really looked into sound cards because i ahve always thought they are just a gimmick so know very little about em, o if this is an obvious question, sorry

 

[Zatharus]

Could a soundcard give higher fram rates in games?

In many cases, yes, because the sound card offloads the processing and mixing of the audio from the CPU. There is still some work for the CPU to do, but the sound card takes most of it.