My HTPC is using a ALC 898 codec and i think it sounds good. 898 got 110 dB SNR, thats a good value, if a higher value can give a truly audible improvement is hard to say, a upgrade would not truly give benefit because the lack is most likely on another spot.
The other systems got a weaker ALC codec (887 [97 dB], 888 [97 dB] + 889 [106 dB]) but they are not intended to be used with music and movies... just gaming and games are usually pretty weak at the music fidelity... the codec is usually not the weak spot.
The 892 is only 97 dB SNR, that's clearly on the weak side, same value such as some of the previous ALC codecs, but only
high quality systems will truly benefit from a even better codec i guess. The 892 is a rather worse codec but surely sufficient for gaming. I wouldnt use it for movies (exept some Youtube videos) and music though.
Matter is surely way more complicated than just "codec". The most critical stuff is:
1. The use of at least 96 Hz sound, even better using 192 Hz, the fidelity/clarity is much higher, especially subwoofer/bass is becoming more precise. Most people are just using some low Hz setting and may use a weak Amp (usually build into affordable PC speakers or headphone) that is not able to support high sound resolution or not able to make proper use of high sound resolution. Those people have probably zero need for better codec... their issue is most likely at another spot. A low Hz codec such as 48 Hz in comparison is sounding like someone is crying behind a frying pan... a muffled non precise sound. But it is almost inaudible when not using high end Amp/speakers because only those devices can make use of truly high resolution.
2. Attaching a suitable high rated Amp, cheap PC speakers wont fit, it need to be a dedicated Amp device. Maybe even a Preamp included, but there is many good "all in one" Amp available in the higher price range.
3. Either the use of huge
floor standing speakers, else the deep bass below 50 Hz will usually suffer a lot or not even become audible. Or the use of
quality bookshelf speakers paired with a dedicated subwoofer that will take over the deep bass frequencies below 80 Hz. The bookshelf build got the advantage of making it easyer setting up a multi speaker system that is usually more affordable and easyer finding a good spot for speaker placement (not to big). Another advantage is that the dependency on the Amp is lower because the subwoofer will have a dedicated Amp, so it wont be taxing the main Amp to much. The main Amp in that term can use more power for the upper frequencies above 80 Hz.
3. Raw power specs got no meaning and peak specs is without meaning, just dont let it fool you. The only stuff that truly matters is the general quality of the Amp and speakers, nothing else. Loudness itself isnt important, but the possible loudness dynamics in order to produce resolution. A loud "boom boom boom" subwoofer (maybe car sound for freaks) is no use as long as not the required agility in order to shatter the sound input into countless pieces and producing every fragment at once.
4. The use of highly compressed audio files (MP3 and such) is not giving any benefit for quality, although extremely popular... in term such formats are used i would not place a bet on the capability of the sound, to much missing sound information and not even a super codec would be useful. However, when used together with audio devices of low resolution (MP3 players, most headphones and such) the difference is almost inaudible. MP3 is especially inferior when it comes to very low frequencies because human hearing is not vulnerable to
masking at those frequencies, it will simply be removed or simplified by the MP3 as a matter of "low priority", and the bass will usually lack depth, this is noticeable on high end speakers.
Ultimately and take note, as long as not the entire chain of requirements is sufficient, a single missing part can destroy the entire quality and the codec is probably the least important part of this chain.
Sound source (file/CD)---->Audio codec---->Amp---->Speakers
Headphones in my mind are good for practical use, especially for gamers, but they cant keep up with the audiophile quality of speakers (especially feeling and fullness of sound), so for true audiophile sound i would refrain from using it, but people may have different opinions.
Another thing i want to say, just as the human eyes, human brain and human nose need training in order to work at the maximum capability, the hearing is not different. Good hearing isnt just a luck of the dice but can be trained or gained too. The industry food is slowly destroying our smelling skills, evolution is depleting the nose because not properly used anymore and it is against the law of nature to support non used parts of the body... and same is for bad music, when music quality is constantly worse the ear will simply degenerate.. The brain will disable hearing of way to frequently used "disturbing frequencies" or "non used frequencies" in order to protect itself from abuse or in order to get ride of wasted ressurces. So just to say... we need quality and agility else we will slowly lose the ability to make a difference and we will become monotone and standardized. Of course, the industry is praising it... so they can produce stuff with low value but still appreciated a lot by the majority, so take care. I'm not even sure which "gap" is bigger, the gap between highly/lowly capable humans or the gap between rich/poor... sometimes it goes hand in hand.
The 1150 sounds pretty good for the majority of people. Its not until you get into a good set of cans/speakers/setup that most would want to move to a discrete card. And that discrete card should be good to improve upon the ALC1150 codec.
The 1150 is a flagship Realtek sound with 115 dB SNR (outstanding value) and only top of the line discrete sound cards will truly grant better sound i suppose. Still, without a very good high end speaker system... there is most likely no audible difference, it is probably waste of money for most of the users.
2 year old thread....
This old Realtek codec isn't as good as the new ALC1150 one, that is for sure.
The difference between 892 and 1150 is like earth and heaven... i would consider it "breath taking" in audiophile terms. Even Realtek got good codecs but the 892 is a mistaken in order to provide a cheaper solution i would say.