Peripherals So, you know that expensive soundcard you just bought?.....

I haven't been reading this thread working out things so I know who's right just so someone can say it or justify their purchase, I'm reading it as someone who doesn't know enough about the subject to make a real informed decision for himself.

Just saying, these debates aren't pointless, they are helping people like me weed through the crap that mostly inhabits the airwaves

 

In my experience, onboard sound is absolutely horrendous compared to a dedicated soundcard. I'm not being an audio snob - it was a clear cut case.

Personally, I'd just get a nice, pricey sound card and use it for years to come - my current one has lasted about 5-6 years so far and isn't showing any signs of slowing down.

 

Why pricey? More expensive = better sound is IMO part of the thinking that drives a lot of audiophile nonsense and snobbery kicking about.

Granted, there's often a correlation between price and quality, as with anything, but expensive shouldn't be be a pre-requisite. The finest DAC I've ever used also happens to be the cheapest, as it happens.

 

still rocking a good old sub 100€ m-audio 2496. huge improvement over onboard but stereo only

 

I have to admit there is a difference in the amount of sounds I hear with my phoebus as from my onboard, I dunno if it's something to do with eax or whatever the current audio thing is for pc, I've really not kept up on that front I just brought the phoebus cos I needed something new!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

In reality onboard sound has evolved into a different beast over the past three years or so, to the extent that for most users on a very modern chipset there will be no need for discrete sound. It'll never be better than the majority of discrete solutions, but it's also not noticeably much worse any more.

Software sound processing is as much to do with any perceived differences as anything else.

 

Agree with you - what I should have said was 'buy the best sound card available at the time'. Within your economic means of course!

 

I did think that was probably what you meant, but I made a point anyway.

I don't often get the chance to participate in techie threads here since I fell out of love with PC tinkery, so I need to take these opportunities when I can.

 

As Shirty has pointed out, on-board sound has come on a lot in the last few years, in the 2 rigs I have, I use the onboard on one perfectly happily, on the other I have my Essence STX, which I can justify keeping, having brought it a while back.

However, would I be able to justify another now? I'm not so sure...one could say it would come down to a lot of things.

 

Here's my 2p on Audio....

your audio path goes something like this

Source - CD/ FLAC file / Game audio etc.
Source device - Sound card / CD player etc
Interconnects/Cables
Amplifier
Speakers /headphones

your audio quality needs to be consistent from beginning to end. Your audio path is about degrading your source as little as possible nothing makes your source "sound better" its about how "little it degrades" it.

A lot of audio quality is about personal preference and perception. Could I tell the difference between on board sound and a dedicated card in a double blind test... probably not... do I listen to my audio in a double blind situation... certainly not... do I think (rightly or wrongly) that my setup sounds better because of factor X or device Y... absolutely yes! I invested time and money in my setup so I have an enormous bias so my perception is it sounds better.

 

All I can say is: I have HD 202 and AKG 271 MK II both have a better soundstage on my DX2 then on my onboard sound. The DX2 has a build in amp so that helps.

 

Many audio devices in the past have relied upon a gullible perception. I starkly recall reading a review in What HIFI? for something called a Shakti brick.

http://6moons.com/audioreviews/3tweaks/1.html

Basically you were supposed to put it on your HIFI stand and it would make it sound better. Price? $200 to $2000. It supposedly takes out resonance.

To me (even as some one who has worked for Rogers and designed coils for Cerwin Vega !) this is just pure stupidity. But then, HIFI in the 90s was all about pure stupidity and who had the most money to piss up the wall on the most ridiculous things to say that it sounds better.

But the fact is that ignoring the pre amplification (IE how loud the sound comes out) if a sound chip can do what it does (IE identically to a posh sound card) then it is what it is.

 

I've noticed that the amp affects the 'soundstage' quite a lot. Using the same DAC through different amps I have here I get everything from a cluttered barely-stereo mess to a broad, well definied array of sounds.

My guess is that it has something to do with how well isolated the channels are.

 

Okay now somethings are just plain stupid.... but my point remains if you were stupid enough to convince yourself it sounds better with a $2000 brick on it then fair enough that's your choice and your perception and your $2000 spent improving your sound.

 

Oh man, I always knew about Shakti stones, but these are just as awesome...

http://www.francktchang.com/3acousticresonators.html

"The equivalent Pro models use Brazilian Rosewood cubes and captive mounts as shown in the last inset. The five different models are based on pure metals and proprietary alloys and simply called Copper, Silver, Gold (yellow gold), Gold Special (Red Gold) and Platinum."

Because everyone knows that Brazilian Rosewood has far better audio properties than any other less expensive-sounding woods. And everybody knows that if it's not a precious metal it ain't worth salt in audio...

EDIT: Just spotted in a review, that typically it's not necessarily required to use more than $5000 worth of resonators. However the "Full monty" is significant, and involves a resonator in your fridge... precisely placed at the front/middle of the bottom shelf...

 

The best amp I've listened to were all DIY AMP using the as few components as possible and the shortest connection / wire possible between components. Less components = less degradations and less $$$.

 

Except for the best sound, all components should be made out of Rhodium plated Plaintum, so more $$$

 

I was talking to my lovely lady the other day about how innocent things seemed to me before the internet.

What I mean is human gullibility and how they can believe pretty much any old crap. When I grew up there used to be numerous things that were a part of my innocent childhood that were very real to me. IE - if you swallow bubblegum it sticks to your insides and kills you. There was this bloke with a willy so big that he got a hardon and all of the blood in his body rushed into his willy and he died of blood starvation to the brain - etc etc.

IE - back in those days you could talk as much crap as you liked and make people believe a rumour because it wasn't overly easy to debunk it. What I mean is yeah, if something sounded too ridiculous you'd call out a Billy Bullshitter. Yet more subtle things (as silly as they sounded) were hard to debunk. Sure you could go down your library and study the human body but you just didn't bother.

These days? it's as simple as picking up a laptop, logging into a desktop, heck, even a mobile phone.

/Google... Does bubblegum stick to your insides and kill you?

And you get your answer.

So what does all of this have to do with the wonders of HIFI? well back then all it took was a magazine and some dumb c-nut to say "Hey ! It works !" and you pretty much fool your entire audience.

It's no wonder that HIFI isn't what it was back then any more really. I think we have just grown more suspicious and wise than we once were as humans.

 

I was told at one point it hardened and you had to have it surgically removed after 3 years. Approaching the third year was a very stressful time for me until I asked my parents about it.

 

I won't even repeat the Marc Almond one but let's just say it had to do with about 6 pints of human fluids.....

But yes, things have changed now big time.