• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

FRONTPAGE BIOSTAR Hi-Fi A85W Motherboard Review

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Overclockers.com

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 1998
Along with the release of AMD Trinity FM2 APUs, for the first time BIOSTAR has incorporated the Puro Hi-Fi design into an AMD platform motherboard. Last time I used a BIOSTAR motherboard with the Puro Hi-Fi audio feature, I was quite impressed. Today’s review sample is the Hi-Fi A85W model, so let’s find out if an AMD version of BIOSTAR’s Hi-Fi motherboard continues to impress.

... Return to article to continue reading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just wonder if the sound is truly better compared to "standart boards" in term both got equal bit rate (usualy a Realtek chip). Obviously that HI-FI board seems to be focused on HTPC users and it apparently is designed to be superior with audio.

But is there truly a hearable difference or is it only here as a marketing gimmick?

As far as i can tell, the highest difference i experienced is coming from a good receiver and loudspeakers. Those are still the most critical components in order to get the best audio quality but i cant tell if the board truly is able to make a audible difference.
 
Bit rate is not the end all to sound...(in fact, it doesnt have anything to do with quality so long as you are comparing like sources with the same bit rate.

THD and S/N ratio are generally king of the hill there (among other things).
 
I guess i dont get it because so far i had in mind that the audio which is transfered over to the receiver ist a digital source. In that term i see no way into refining those bits because bits are simply bits, they dont change (they only change in term they get lost, they should not get lost).

A analog signal is something different thats certain, quality will matter a lot. Analog is the signal which is transfered over from reciver to the loudspeakers, so that signal is heavely quality dependent.

But how do you refine digital bits when transfered over using HDMI? Whats the secret? How is the sound chip able to make any influence on this in term the bits are delivered properly at the desired bitrate? Surely i have not much clue but thats why i ask.


Besides i know of no newer board without 192KHz support, feeling confused reading this. I wonder what board they gonna call "normal board". Even my baby Shuttle got a 192 KHz audio chip. On top of that the Radeon GPUs got a chip (for HDMI) with comparable specs.

Of course i dont know about the hidden untold specs auch as THD or S/N, but as far as i know it is not a matter to digital ressources, those stuff comes into play at the final sound creator, such as a AV receiver.
provide the higher audio output of 24 bit/ 192KHz than the 16 bit/ 48KHz from the normal MB. You will experience the high quality sound effect with pure Blu-Ray Audio.

I made some research:
THD: Affects the Reciever
S/N: Seems to affect the reciever too

Doesnt seem to be a attribute a board have to handle.



If someone could tell me whats the point of getting this board, thank you.
 
Last edited:
The board generates an analog output to the speakers. The S/N ratio starts when the signal is generated. A board that generates a noisy signal is a bad start.
 
To the speakers? So its a amplifier?!

If so thats the stuff a receiver is doing, so i have no use for such a board.

Whats the point using a analog signal? After all, the PC is simply here in order to read data, enhance them, and transfering over the data bits to the receiver.

For an onboard sound solution, this is really hard to beat
Onboard means? Making amplifier work?

A standart board got a soundchip, usualy a Realtek ALC but thats not a amplifier as far as i can tell. At least not the digital out, the analog is of no interest to me. Analog is required for the loudspeakers, but thats a secondary stage done by the amplifier.
 
Last edited:
No, the signal from the computer, to the receiver or the computer speakers with a built in amp, is analog. Unless of course you're using the SPDIF.

There is an amp, it's just a small one. Not enough to drive speakers, but plenty to drive headphones.
 
The audio signal over HDMI?! I always had in mind thats a digital format.

Besides thats the spec of a ALC898, pretty commonly used (on usual overclockers or mainstream boards such as Asrock Extreme M4):

�� High performance DACs with 110dB signal-to-noise ratio(A-weighting)
�� High performance ADCs with 104dB signal-to-noise ration (A-weighting).
�� Meets Microsoft WLP3.x (Windows Logo Program) audio requirements
�� Ten DAC channels support 16/20/24-bit PCM format for 7.1 sound playback, plus 2 channels of
concurrent independent stereo sound output (multiple streaming) through the front panel output
�� Three stereo ADCs support 16/20/24-bit PCM format, multiple stereo recording
�� All DACs supports 44.1k/48k/88.2k/96k/192kHz sample rate
�� All ADCs supports 44.1k/48k/88.2k/96k/192kHz sample rate
�� Primary 16/20/24-bit S/PDIF-OUT supports 32k/44.1k/48k/88.2k/96k/192kHz sample rate
�� Secondary 16/20/24-bit S/PDIF-OUT supports 32k/44.1k/48k/88.2k/96k/192kHz sample rate
�� 16/20/24-bit S/PDIF-IN supports 32k/44.1k/48k/96k/192kHz sample rate
�� All analog jacks (port-A to port-H) are stereo input and output re-tasking
�� Port-A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H built in headphone amplifiers
�� Port-B/C/E/F with software selectable boost gain (+10/+20/+30dB) for analog microphone input
�� High-quality analog differential CD input
�� Supports external PCBEEP input and built-in digital BEEP generator
�� Software selectable 2.5V/3.2V/4.0V VREFOUT
�� Up to four channels of microphone array input are supported for AEC/BF application
�� Two jack detection pins each designed to detect up to 4 jacks plugging
�� Supports analog GPIO2 to be jack detection for CD input which is used as 9th analog port
�� Supports legacy analog mixer architecture
�� Up to 3 GPIOs (General Purpose Input and Output) for customized applications. GPIO0 and GPIO1
share pin with DMIC-CLK/SPDIF-OUT2 and DMIC-DATA.
�� Supports mono and stereo digital microphone interface (pins shared with GPIO0 and GPIO1)
�� Supports anti-pop mode when analog power LDO-IN is on and digital power is off.
�� Built-in analog LDO.
�� Content Protection for Full Rate loss-less DVD Audio, Blu-rayTM DVD and HD-DVD audio
content playback (with selected versions of WinDVD/PowerDVD/TMT)
�� Hardware Zero-Detect output volume control
�� 0.75dB per step output volume and input volume control
�� Supports 3.3V digital core power, 1.5V or 3.3V digital I/O power for HD Audio link, and 5.0V
analog power
�� Intel low power ECR compliant and power status control for every analog/digital converter and pin
widgets.
�� 48-pin LQFP ‘Green’ package


The BIOSTAR got a weaker Realtek ALC892.
 
Last edited:
HDMI gets the digital signal.
Did the review say HDMI? The features page spends a lot of time talking about the analog ports.

The review even states that it's targeted by Biostar at the Audiophile population.
 
?!? Cant they hear sound over HDMI?

I always had in mind HDMI got the best sound because the bits are transfered over to the receiver, and then modulated to a analog signal from the receiver to the speakers. Thus in theory it should result into the best quality.

So they use that board in order to get a analog signal, but is it possible to get a even better sound? Meaning that the entire line of the sound creation is analog but whats the point? When they read data on a HDD, thats in a digital format, the first device in need of a analog modulation is the amplifier as far as i can tell.

OK, regarding audio CD i dont know how they work exactly, but a BD disc is usualy having the sound stored in a codec format and that one is digital aswell.
 
Last edited:
That's not what I said.
I said the HDMI gets the digital (audio) signal.
The HiFi stuff is all aimed at the analog ports.
 
Ok but is there any advantage using those analog ports?
targeted by Biostar at the Audiophile population.
Is a audiophile in need of analog output?

...through an analog connection to your home theater system, multi-channel speakers and high-end headphone. You can enjoy real Blu-ray grade high-definition sound that you’ve never experienced before.
That sounds like they want to say, no other connection can beat that analog.

Reading: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/28

Ok so far i can tell, DAC signal to noise ratio (S/N ratio) is the digital to analog conversion, thats done by receiver so its of no importance in term the signal is transfered over by HDMI.

Ok done reading, as far as i am able to read the best way how its done is a digital takeover to a receiver, because a digital receiver is indeed superior. Guess the question is answered. I just dunno why that system is called "audiophile HIFI", i guess its a low cost HIFI, thats not the perfect audio, but the perfect "low cost audio" it seems.That means, yes, if someone want to build the cheapest HTPC possible that solution is the way to go but its not the case in term the money is not limited. When some higher amount of money, a digital receiver is the best solution as far as i can tell. But a digital receiver will only be gotten 1 time in 10 years, its not that expensive at all. A HTPC board may be gotten several times because such a computer is outdated far quicker than a good receiver.

What i finally think simply is, yes its cheap, but its not that much cheaper in the long term because a digital receiver is simply worth it.

Now reading to uncover the truth: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-versus-analog.htm

Well i want to see a proof that a audiophile is able to hear a difference. Is it truth or just a mental hardliner condition?:
Today, technology in the audio recording industry is so advanced that many audio engineers will tell you there's no detectable difference between analog and digital recordings. Even if you were to use the best stereo equipment, you shouldn't be able to identify one medium versus the other just by listening to the sound. Many audiophiles disagree and claim that the analog format is still supreme

Even if there is really a difference, its impossible to hear the difference from a digital format because the digital music format is not continuous. So the stuff they want to achieve is trying to force the second instance into a analog but the first instane is stlll not analog:

First instance (purity is already dirty here):
BD/CD or other digital media:

Second Instance ("audiophile boards are trying to be "faster" and handing out a analog to the third instance, which is as good as pointless in my mind because a DAC is used, under perfect conditions there is no DAC or ADC).
MB chip

Third Instance:
(that one is finally creating a analog signal, the one audiophile love so much, even a digital receiver is doing it. In term there is already a analog signal, it will not make a own DAC, but a receiver is usualy superior doing so, that means we may lose quality).
Receiver + Amplifier

Fourth Instance: (Analog)
Speakers

As long as not every single instance is analog it wont be completly continous. ;) In my mind thats kinda foolish and trying to gain purity where simply no purity is possible as long as not the full chain is able to be analog.

Still, in my mind a very advanced digital source such as FLAC is very close to continuous frequency, in term there is a nanosecond break, the fourth instance, the amplifier/speaker will still continue to vibrate, because they got a certain inertia, means they will continue to deliver a sound, even if there is none. I dont think its audible. So it should be possible to be continuous in term the bitrate is able to surpass the inertia. So my first comment to watch at the bitrate is still valid to me.
 
Last edited:
Back