-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Sound card still necessary?
- Thread starter Jpaul
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
Unless you need a high wattage amplified analog output(high impedance headphones), ultra low latency response times(mixing, recording), or balanced input/outputs(pro audio signals) no there is no need for a dedicated sound card any longer.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
As ssjwizard said, unless you have need for some special features or inputs/outputs (balanced, phantom power..), there's no need to get a separate sound card. Some games might still support EAX sound effects (more layered effects like environment based reverb), but most games have their own sound engine running on the CPU that doesn't require special hardware to run. As far as actual sound performance goes, modern integrated and PCI sound cards are very good, but have a slightly higher background noise/noise floor/interference from PSU, so if that distracts you, an external DAC or balanced interconnects will help you.
But no, you hardly need a separate sound card nowadays, the absolute improvements (distortion, frequency response, noise floor) in sound quality are negliglible.
But no, you hardly need a separate sound card nowadays, the absolute improvements (distortion, frequency response, noise floor) in sound quality are negliglible.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Location
- Lives under a bridge
no, unless you want/need extra I/O's or a better DAC.
even still you could run a eternal DAC off you onboard card.
edit
try runing a set of sexttets of a onboard card ick vs a highend soundcard or DAC (with the same amp ofcourse)
ok ok, not everyone has a set of 4x600ohm headphones lol
even still you could run a eternal DAC off you onboard card.
oh rly
edit
try runing a set of sexttets of a onboard card ick vs a highend soundcard or DAC (with the same amp ofcourse)
ok ok, not everyone has a set of 4x600ohm headphones lol
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
That's more about output power and impedance rather than absolute sound quality, unless you're implying that bigger impedance somehow makes headphones sound automatically better, or that bigger output power means objectively better quality sound output (false). As what it's supposed to be, ie. just a DAC (maybe powering high sensitivity headphones), the integrated sound cards are completely viable options, if not the most feature laid or functional in all scenarios (ground loops, connectivity, interference, or as you said, unconventional power or impedance requirements).
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Location
- Lives under a bridge
it's not so much as a power thing as it is to show that I don't mess around with the cheap stuff. I'm referring to my akg k240 sextett.
TBH most headphones with high impedance are better, but not always.
wile integrated soundcards/dac will do more then needed for more then 90% of the people out there.
there are guys like me who can make out a difference with a high end soundcard/DAC vs a cheap one.
heck I been playing with my jvc rx 8040b's DAC and I can tell a big difference form my sound card and it. that amp/receiver has a nice DAC in it to.
maybe I should fire up my onboard card and play with it abit.
for the few people out that want that edge on a already high end system, we spend a lot on the little things.
now am no fool who buys a 500$ cable lol
eidt
but for most people, they're better of putting the money for a sounddcard/DAC into better speakers/headphones.
now as for as recoding goes that a hole norther thing.
EDIT:
to answer OP's "?" no they are not nearness at all on board has gotting better and windows has getting worse with them.
now if your like me or spend 100's of $ on you set up, you mare want to consider a better soundcard/DAC
BTW a sound card is more or less a Digital-to-analog converter, or simply a DAC
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
Why bring personal flaunts into a conversation.
Actually level matched, in a blind A/B test (even casual blind A/B test is better if you can't do a correct double blind ABX)? Otherwise the claim is not valid even if you told yourself so. Unlike internet seems to think, owning expensive/special headphones do not make your claims correct without proper testing. Unfortunately many people seem to think they're exempt from sighted/confirmation bias that is a lot stronger effect than you might assume.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Location
- Lives under a bridge
lets OP know I'm not apart of the average folk and what I need is not going to be the same for everyone else.
ok so your saying better is not better unless you test it in a blind test.
ok I can see what your saying and where your going...
EDIT
some onboard cards can output digital via rca and the green 3.5mm jack as well as the optical port
seems like your not a audiophile or have any high end audio stuff. but you do seem to know a good bit.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
Having money to blow in a sports car doesn't make one a good driver either. We stated special needs already (by saying IF you need extra connectivity or power output etc, not by mentioning some obscure headphones that might run poorly on gear they were not intended to run on in the first place).
Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. The brain omits and highlights parts of what we hear, and our expectations change what we're listening for accordingly. If you know what you're listening to, it changes your perception. It doesn't apply only into sound, either.
Furthermore, one doesn't need the self-assurance that expensive shiny gear brings, when stuff like ODAC + Objective² amplifier are in almost every single specification and measurement as good as Benchmark DAC1 but cheaper, and proven to be audibly identical in a controlled blind test. Other DAC with such merit proven is the Behringer DEQ2496.
Then again, many self-claimed audio experts and "audiophiles" cringe when hearing the brand Behringer, because it's cheap and looks cheap and as a brand seems cheap. But then again, those three qualities have nothing to do with audio, yet they shape their perception of the brand strongly enough to buy junk like Nuforce, which actually sounds and functions terribly poorly, yet people liked the uDAC-2 until someone pointed out it's horrible. Afterwards it lost a lot of it's popularity, when someone with a scientific mind and common sense pointed out the now obvious flaws. Those flaws are not visible from the price tag, anodized casing or nice buzz words or the privileged feeling of buying something expensive.
See where I'm going with this? I'm not arguing Sextetts would be bad at all, but implying that no matter how much money can you blow on gear, you have to prove what you say. This we call logic.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Location
- Lives under a bridge
fist off the sextetts are not obscure and I'm not trying to insult you
second the bold part is what I'm talking about.
this is kind of stuff brought up all the time and both sides are right to some point.
but I stand by what I said about different DAC's go grab one of those 5~10$ usb DAC's then compare it a a onboard, bind test or not your tell a difference.
I'm sure the 5~10$ usb dac will have load of nose on the line among other things, like not being able to handle different frequency and so on. I bet they lack bass and power in the sound as well
now you my like the 5~10 DAC more then say a 200$ one.
but like I sad, your right. just saying something is better does not make it better. it needs proof
I can say the water in the toilet is better for you then what you find bottled
but until it's tested we will not know. it's all personal preference for the most part.
I have a old GuS sound card that's junky on paper but I prefer its sound verses something thats technically better.
it's like records some will say it's better then cd's wile others say it's not. when it comes to sound/video it's all up to the user's preferences.
I my self like the cleaner sound of my sound card vs the week cold sound of my onboard card and echoy sound of my amp/receiver's DAC .
there no proving whats better with sound. it's all upto the user, one user may like something wile the other does not. blind test or not.
I'm sure there is a lot of people how would like the DAC in my amp/receiver over my sound card.
this is why we have different types of headphones, speakers and DAC/soundcard and other equipment. and not ones that are plainly better or worse.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
It's in the end down to personal preference which unfortunately renders my argument's point debatable. Going for high fidelity though, the merits of objectively perfect and transparent audio quality are known, and as such I like to emphasize their importance over nice looking and mostly over-priced and underperforming products.
Back on topic though. All motherboards have vastly different power and sound circuitry, and it depends on other aspects of the computer too (power supply quality, EMI/RFI from other components like powerful GPU/CPU..), so you can't really generalize the exact sound quality. However, what I've heard with most efficient headphones and active speakers, is that modern higher end motherboards sound okay, and there's very little if anything to improve by getting another sound card that still relies to the same limitations that happen inside the computer mentioned above. On older motherboards (early budget LGA775), the noise floor was audible and distracting on headphones and speakers alike. Back then a PCI sound card was an enormous update, a USB DAC slight improvement from PCI and so on.. Nowadays, I've found many USB DACs above $100 (FiiO E7, Fast Track Pro, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2) sound very similar, and to be less than incredibly necessary and exponential upgrades from integrated solutions. They do have their own strengths, headphone amplifiers, phantom power, balanced outputs etc, which aren't directly related to the quality of the DA-conversion, but for most parts I could listen to music/watch a movie with either and be totally happy as long as the speakers and headphones were apt for the job.
But yeah, if you don't know you need some special features and there isn't anything wrong you can hear in the sound of the specific motherboard you have, no you don't need a new sound card, rest assured it'll do fine.
Back on topic though. All motherboards have vastly different power and sound circuitry, and it depends on other aspects of the computer too (power supply quality, EMI/RFI from other components like powerful GPU/CPU..), so you can't really generalize the exact sound quality. However, what I've heard with most efficient headphones and active speakers, is that modern higher end motherboards sound okay, and there's very little if anything to improve by getting another sound card that still relies to the same limitations that happen inside the computer mentioned above. On older motherboards (early budget LGA775), the noise floor was audible and distracting on headphones and speakers alike. Back then a PCI sound card was an enormous update, a USB DAC slight improvement from PCI and so on.. Nowadays, I've found many USB DACs above $100 (FiiO E7, Fast Track Pro, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2) sound very similar, and to be less than incredibly necessary and exponential upgrades from integrated solutions. They do have their own strengths, headphone amplifiers, phantom power, balanced outputs etc, which aren't directly related to the quality of the DA-conversion, but for most parts I could listen to music/watch a movie with either and be totally happy as long as the speakers and headphones were apt for the job.
But yeah, if you don't know you need some special features and there isn't anything wrong you can hear in the sound of the specific motherboard you have, no you don't need a new sound card, rest assured it'll do fine.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Location
- Lives under a bridge
the same goes for my point. we both are right in are own mind
EMI is the big player with determining the sound in my book. and old mobos sure had crap for sound. also keep in mind a higher end sound cards will have better caps, opamp, shielding ext, some opamps can be remove without soldering on sound cards as well.
I'm playing around with my on board card right now and with low end files its almost the same, but there is a faint difference, I would not say ether are better tho. I did get the card back when on boardsound was a big nono and never tested the onboard car on my mobo. I was rather impressed on how well it was.
but you can make it out more with higher end lossless stuff. still I would not say eater is better. but I'm going to stick with the detected card as thats what I like. I do have a hing end mobo (asus x58 sabertooth) but I also tryd my thinkpad's onboard sound, eck well it is from 2006 and not meant for hifi sound.
the detected card has more power in the sound (not loudness) and I like that.
but I completely agree with you on that last part. if I can get at lest 85~90% of the quality out of my set up I'm not going to shell out for some 500$ cable or 1k DAC, amp and so on. it would be better to just get better headphones or speakers.
DAC's cables and stuff like that should be 10~20% of you setups costs at best. (jacks, solder, sleeving, zipties and all that stuff)
30% on amps giver take given you setup and the rest be headphone/speakers. I would not put acoustics in to the budget.
defiantly not if its a headphone setup. but it is apart of the setup and can cost you $$$ , you'd lol big time at my speaker setup.
I hardly use them if at all, so I'm not going to bother doing it right. even know I should. :/
edit
the old Intel onboard cards with that amp thing drives my nuts (not use what it's called) the second you turn it on the audio distorts like crazy, my thinkpad has that. and I hate it.
EDIT2
if I did not buy my card way back when onboard sucked I probably would be using onboard and spent the rest on a better amp to make up for the lack of one on the onboard. still I'm not goning sell the card I have, the surroundsound emu is cool.and all the extr I/O's are nice to have. I have no clue how the onboard card fars with recording tho.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
Another "audiophile" myth that serves no purpose but sales speak. There's absolutely no point in changing the operational amplifier, since a proper sound circuitry is designed around the operational amplifier to make it function optimally (Source: a few courses on IC circuitry, I'm an engineer student which can't be said for many who go around spreading anecdotal evidence as scientific facts). Ridiculously fast slew rates that many audiophiles claim make sound "faster" don't have anything to give to the actual sound quality (and very likely just degrade the overall performance, bigger noise floor and way bigger distortion, while the improvement in slew rate are ridiculously huge and have nothing to do with the audible spectrum of sound that never goes "faster" than 22KHz or so).
Some nice reading about how Op-Amps actually work, instead of the mindless drivel of people who buy into marketing speech and go by unproven hearsay
TL;DR: Operational amplifier is usually meant to only increase gain (ie. amplification), not alter the sound.
0.05% of the budget should go into cables, some 0-20% on DAC, 0-20% on amplifier, and rest on speakers and acoustics. The transducers and room acoustics will always affect the sound THE most, it's the least known component in speaker design, and will have freq. response peaks as big as over ten of decibels (10dB = perceptible doubling of loudness). Furthermore, most people place speakers completely wrong and have no idea of acoustics or room correction, which will always ruin even the best speaker.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Location
- Lives under a bridge
I never said it would make it sound better, what if it whent bad. you can just buy a new one inplace of buying a hole new card. some times they run hot and burn out. and not everyone know how to solder.
I like how we are both right and can't be proven wrong lolThis makes for a very good read. Both of you have remained so civil throughout that this thread should be bumped as an example of how to carry out a discussion/debate/audio lesson, required reading for new members, IMHO.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2011
- Location
- Republic of Texas
This makes for a very good read. Both of you have remained so civil throughout that this thread should be bumped as an example of how to carry out a discussion/debate/audio lesson, required reading for new members, IMHO.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
I stumbled upon this thread and found it very informative and entertaining as well. I have a few comments I would like to make:
1. I think if you are worried about 'brand name' you are not interested in good sound as much as showing off the nice gear. I dont think this is bad as I think looking for good quality stuff is important and some brands ARE known for good equipment. Again if the brand is the sole reason to buy I think that can be a big mistake.
2. Modern day onboard sound has VASTLY improved over the years. To it's credit I dont use a discrete sound card anymore as the on-board sound is plenty good enough for my needs.
3. At the end of the day its how it sounds to 'you'. If you like the sound of a certain brand or make and it pleases you then get it. . Be happy with it. But also, what sounds good to you may not to someone else. I think the bottom line is what sounds good to you, and makes you happy.
4. I would not count out a sound product just because it wasnt a' brand name' I have heard many good sound systems that are relatively cheap and even small. But they sound awesome.
Final thoughts: I would suggest a great set of speakers and proper placement over making sure the name is 'cool' After all its about how it sounds. Who cares what it looks like(to a point right?? lol)
Great thread here I enjoyed
Z
1. I think if you are worried about 'brand name' you are not interested in good sound as much as showing off the nice gear. I dont think this is bad as I think looking for good quality stuff is important and some brands ARE known for good equipment. Again if the brand is the sole reason to buy I think that can be a big mistake.
2. Modern day onboard sound has VASTLY improved over the years. To it's credit I dont use a discrete sound card anymore as the on-board sound is plenty good enough for my needs.
3. At the end of the day its how it sounds to 'you'. If you like the sound of a certain brand or make and it pleases you then get it. . Be happy with it. But also, what sounds good to you may not to someone else. I think the bottom line is what sounds good to you, and makes you happy.
4. I would not count out a sound product just because it wasnt a' brand name' I have heard many good sound systems that are relatively cheap and even small. But they sound awesome.
Final thoughts: I would suggest a great set of speakers and proper placement over making sure the name is 'cool' After all its about how it sounds. Who cares what it looks like(to a point right?? lol)
Great thread here I enjoyed
Z
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
My thoughts:
If something sounds good to you (whoever you might be), that's great.
If you're going to advise someone on what they should buy, what sounds good to you really doesn't matter. It's what is actually proven good that matters. For this you need scientific (blind) testing.
It's the same with PSUs and newegg reviews. Logisys units have an excellent average (people like 'em, they "sound good"), despite being horrid units.
If something sounds good to you (whoever you might be), that's great.
If you're going to advise someone on what they should buy, what sounds good to you really doesn't matter. It's what is actually proven good that matters. For this you need scientific (blind) testing.
It's the same with PSUs and newegg reviews. Logisys units have an excellent average (people like 'em, they "sound good"), despite being horrid units.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
Thanks for the input everyone.
It is very worrysome how most people into audio forums blindly believe the consensus of places like Head-Fi (which is known to censor opinions conflicting with the views of their sponsors), and in magazines like What Hi-Fi that receive ad revenue. For some reason, the bias and motives are never questioned. Geeks cry out sometimes, when a GPU review heavily features games that favor either NVIDIA or AMD, saying the reviewer is biased. When Head-Fi censors a whistleblower who measured outrageous distortion and channel imbalance on a sponsorer's device, and they also have the sponsorer's ads up in the site nobody seems to count 1 + 1 and see what's going on. That and complete absence of logic ie. someone owns an expensive product, therefore they know what they're talking about makes me get on my hindquarters quite a lot.
Very likely Hi-Fi enthusiast of days yore would've laughed anyone out of the business if a person showed them a $500 RCA cable and claimed it sounds better. Back then, people had actual concerns over amplifier and speaker quality, nowadays we get adequate quality for little money and differences are less distinguishable, some uninformed unfortunates turn into snake-oil and completely anecdotal endorsements without scientific background or real proof to seek their audio nirvana. Why? I argue that some people new to audio might not even be aware of what does good sound (objectively) means, so they rely on buzz words like "black", "spacious", "sparkling", and are guided by people who seem most professional, ie. people who own the most gear, and people who are the loudest (people with motives, people who get paid to do it. It's not like they're doing it out of the kindness of their hearts). Some people might never learn about the actual sound science that has allowed them to enjoy recordings in the first place, or when they hear about people like me foaming at the mouth for logic and evidence, they find it ridiculous because they're used to them being disregarded. It's rather distracting how it's a great majority who believe variations in sound pressure and electronic voltage are somehow impossible to quantize scientifically. They can laugh at me, I'll keep foaming at the mouth and maybe someone tilts an ear every now and then and converts to the other side
(If someone's interested, Ethan Winer is a name who might have a lot to teach, like this Audio Myths Workshop video on YouTube)
This is what I endorse a lot and agree with. Blind testing and scientifical measurements (frequency response, intermodulation and harmonic distortion, frequency response, noise and channel balance) compliment each other and are a valid way to prove one's subjective claims. Disregarding acoustics (decay time, room modes and room's frequency response), they completely specify how a device sounds, unlike subjective reviews which are based around feel, opinions and anecdotal evidence.
It is very worrysome how most people into audio forums blindly believe the consensus of places like Head-Fi (which is known to censor opinions conflicting with the views of their sponsors), and in magazines like What Hi-Fi that receive ad revenue. For some reason, the bias and motives are never questioned. Geeks cry out sometimes, when a GPU review heavily features games that favor either NVIDIA or AMD, saying the reviewer is biased. When Head-Fi censors a whistleblower who measured outrageous distortion and channel imbalance on a sponsorer's device, and they also have the sponsorer's ads up in the site nobody seems to count 1 + 1 and see what's going on. That and complete absence of logic ie. someone owns an expensive product, therefore they know what they're talking about makes me get on my hindquarters quite a lot.
Very likely Hi-Fi enthusiast of days yore would've laughed anyone out of the business if a person showed them a $500 RCA cable and claimed it sounds better. Back then, people had actual concerns over amplifier and speaker quality, nowadays we get adequate quality for little money and differences are less distinguishable, some uninformed unfortunates turn into snake-oil and completely anecdotal endorsements without scientific background or real proof to seek their audio nirvana. Why? I argue that some people new to audio might not even be aware of what does good sound (objectively) means, so they rely on buzz words like "black", "spacious", "sparkling", and are guided by people who seem most professional, ie. people who own the most gear, and people who are the loudest (people with motives, people who get paid to do it. It's not like they're doing it out of the kindness of their hearts). Some people might never learn about the actual sound science that has allowed them to enjoy recordings in the first place, or when they hear about people like me foaming at the mouth for logic and evidence, they find it ridiculous because they're used to them being disregarded. It's rather distracting how it's a great majority who believe variations in sound pressure and electronic voltage are somehow impossible to quantize scientifically. They can laugh at me, I'll keep foaming at the mouth and maybe someone tilts an ear every now and then and converts to the other side
(If someone's interested, Ethan Winer is a name who might have a lot to teach, like this Audio Myths Workshop video on YouTube)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Location
- Lives under a bridge
yup, the second you buy stuff by its name alone is the second you shot your foot.
I have some friends that drive me nuts with their costly turtle beach headphones. and they refuse to use any of my headphones cuz they know some no name stuff from the 70's can't beat them. or at lest that what they tell them selves.
know I know turtle beach had some ok stuff in the 90's but today all there stuff is over priced for what you get IMO.
your still shund and laughed at on haed-fi for buying into the overpraised cables and stuff.]
Very likely Hi-Fi enthusiast of days yore would've laughed anyone out of the business if a person showed them a $500 RCA cable and claimed it sounds better. Back then, people had actual concerns over amplifier and speaker quality, nowadays we get adequate quality for little money and differences are less distinguishable, some uninformed unfortunates turn into snake-oil and completely anecdotal endorsements without scientific background or real proof to seek their audio nirvana. Why? I argue that some people new to audio might not even be aware of what does good sound (objectively) means, so they rely on buzz words like "black", "spacious", "sparkling", and are guided by people who seem most professional, ie. people who own the most gear, and people who are the loudest (people with motives, people who get paid to do it. It's not like they're doing it out of the kindness of their hearts). Some people might never learn about the actual sound science that has allowed them to enjoy recordings in the first place, or when they hear about people like me foaming at the mouth for logic and evidence, they find it ridiculous because they're used to them being disregarded. It's rather distracting how it's a great majority who believe variations in sound pressure and electronic voltage are somehow impossible to quantize scientifically. They can laugh at me, I'll keep foaming at the mouth and maybe someone tilts an ear every now and then and converts to the other side
now I know the right cable will make a difference, but it's not going to make it better by any means.
like my akg sextett, the stock cable on them was so old and falling apart I needed to replace it. but I only spent like 15~20$ on everything for it, that included the 1/4" jack, cables, solder, zipties and cable sleeving. now I could tell a difference, but that was only because both speakers were working 100% all the time and not cutting out lol
so if your cable is working and sounds fine and better one is not going to help.
do you have any proof about head-fi censoring stuff, I never seen them do that.
TBH there are a lot of audiophilefools on that site, but they're enough smart people to point out the crazy stuff.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
Of course you don't see them do it, they don't allow people kicking them in the shins too hard. The person who originally outed the Nuforce uDAC-2 was banned, as was the person who pointed out that the sponsor Schiit had an amplifier with a 2.2 volt turnoff transient (which can easily rip headphones, literally). It was hushed down as no biggie.
Unfortunately I have very little data to back this up, this blog by a senior engineer
, and the fact I was there myself when the uDAC-2 measurements were discussed and he was banned.
Furthermore, I was permabanned without warning because I made a (friendly and humorous in tone) remark to a person who appreciated power cables. I told him he might want to consider changing the few miles of aluminum cable to his power plant, and the few feet of copper wire inside his walls so the power would be cleaner. I didn't attack any manufacturer or sponsor even I just got banned. And I was no spammer, my posts were not overwhelming in quantity, and always cited sources and were friendly.
Here's a video of the Schiit Asgard and AKG K702 on/off cycle, to prove it's a malfunctioning design that was sold as functional.
I'm counting one disregard for people's headphone/ear safety (Schiit Asgard), one censorship of negative sponsor performance overall (Nuforce uDAC-2), and a very juvenile ban in my case. I just strongly dislike the place.
Last edited:
