Im wondering if there is a card that has a coaxial digital output option, i thought the audigy or audigy 2 would have one but i asked someone selling one and they said it didnt. Im using my onboard soundstorm at the moment which only has optical output, but ive read that this isnt very good and a digital coaxial connection is better, i know you can mod your nf7-s to add this output, which is what im doing now, but im thinking its kind of pointless to have a good coaxial lead connected to a coaxial plug which is attatched to 2 pins on my mobo with flimsy wires?
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Soundcards with coaxial output
- Thread starter William.E
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #3
im not sure where i read it, ive been reading a bit here and there, the gist of it was that coaxial was the best connection while optical was worst, behind rca even, ive seen a few commments and reviews on optical connections, i read a review on a van den hul optical cable which said that even this very expensive lead wasnt as good as a coaxial cable, i couldnt tell you why but read up on it, there are reasons for it, what about those sound cards, do any have co-ax connectors?
Sorry for the side track...I will look into it...
Check the Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro; it is expensive, but has coaxial and optical.
Even cheap SBLive! Value cards have digital coaxial outputs, but you need an adapter to hook it up to a receiver. I'm fairly sure every SB card since has a similar mini-plug digital out on the backplate.
Check the Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro; it is expensive, but has coaxial and optical.
Even cheap SBLive! Value cards have digital coaxial outputs, but you need an adapter to hook it up to a receiver. I'm fairly sure every SB card since has a similar mini-plug digital out on the backplate.
- Thread Starter
- #5
ha, ive just been doing a little more reading from here,
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/toslink/toslink.html
which suggests that the differences between optical and rca spdif cables are exagerted somewhat by various parties, its made me think again, the van den hul octocoupler cable retails for £39 though, but thats still cheaper than a new soundcard, i bet i can get it cheaper on ebay, though im not sure if its really worth it for my soundsystem - digitheatre dts -
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/toslink/toslink.html
which suggests that the differences between optical and rca spdif cables are exagerted somewhat by various parties, its made me think again, the van den hul octocoupler cable retails for £39 though, but thats still cheaper than a new soundcard, i bet i can get it cheaper on ebay, though im not sure if its really worth it for my soundsystem - digitheatre dts -
Now that I gave you some answers I've been thinking about the Coaxial vs. Optical issue:
Both cables are transmitting DIGITAL data - 1's and 0's - there is no way a cable can change the character of the sound. It is simply impossible, either it transmits the stream of 1's and 0's or it doesn't.
The only difference is the optical signal goes through 2 extra conversion, one to light from an electrical signal, and one from light back to an electrical signal. However, this conversion is entirely digital on both ends, so again, either the 1's and 0's are converted or they aren't. This has nothing to do with the connection type, it has to do with the quality of the equipment connected with the cable.
As long as you use a quality cable, optical and coaxial will deliever the EXACT same signal to the decoder, there is no other way around it. A digital signal can't be made 'warmer' by a coaxial cable, or have better frequency response with a optical cable.
If you do hear a difference, it is because the equipment on one end (or both) is not doing the optical conversion with enough accuracy. Does this potential problem mean coaxial is better? In my opinion it doesn't, not in every situation. If you are using quality audio components there will be no difference.
Both cables are transmitting DIGITAL data - 1's and 0's - there is no way a cable can change the character of the sound. It is simply impossible, either it transmits the stream of 1's and 0's or it doesn't.
The only difference is the optical signal goes through 2 extra conversion, one to light from an electrical signal, and one from light back to an electrical signal. However, this conversion is entirely digital on both ends, so again, either the 1's and 0's are converted or they aren't. This has nothing to do with the connection type, it has to do with the quality of the equipment connected with the cable.
As long as you use a quality cable, optical and coaxial will deliever the EXACT same signal to the decoder, there is no other way around it. A digital signal can't be made 'warmer' by a coaxial cable, or have better frequency response with a optical cable.
If you do hear a difference, it is because the equipment on one end (or both) is not doing the optical conversion with enough accuracy. Does this potential problem mean coaxial is better? In my opinion it doesn't, not in every situation. If you are using quality audio components there will be no difference.
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Location
- Tri-Cities, Washington
From what I've read in the past, from unbiased sources, coax and optical are supposed to be equal. Basically as kct2 said, they're both digital.
As a disclaimer, I am by no means an expert on this stuff.
I was actually on the phone 2 weeks ago with a Creative tech support girl, and she said that Coax is superior because it can handle more channels than an optical cable. I didn't say anything, but I think she was full of cr@p. That just doesn't make sense to me. But again, I am not an expert on the matter.
Maybe a knowledgable audiophile can set us straight...
As a disclaimer, I am by no means an expert on this stuff.
I was actually on the phone 2 weeks ago with a Creative tech support girl, and she said that Coax is superior because it can handle more channels than an optical cable. I didn't say anything, but I think she was full of cr@p. That just doesn't make sense to me. But again, I am not an expert on the matter.
Maybe a knowledgable audiophile can set us straight...
- Thread Starter
- #8
on paper co-axial is supposed to be better because optical is only supposed to be capable of 24/96 data transfers, whatever that is, and co-ax 24/192, but what the reviewer said, and it looks like hes using a very decent system, is in practice there isnt any real difference in thier performance, but thats with top quality cables, i wouldnt use an el cheapo 2.99 cable, but i dont know where id draw a line so im going for vdh optocoupler,
...apart from interconnects what other type of speaker cabling are people using on here? i never thought about it before, but my new/second hand speakers didnt come with speaker cables so i had to get some new ones, but some of the cables are pretty expensive, i read that the 10p (10c) cables that come with speakers ruin the sound quality so if your spending big bucks on your speakers you should get some decent cable to go with them, has anyone changed there cables and did you notice a difference?
...apart from interconnects what other type of speaker cabling are people using on here? i never thought about it before, but my new/second hand speakers didnt come with speaker cables so i had to get some new ones, but some of the cables are pretty expensive, i read that the 10p (10c) cables that come with speakers ruin the sound quality so if your spending big bucks on your speakers you should get some decent cable to go with them, has anyone changed there cables and did you notice a difference?
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Location
- Bergen, Norway
For normal cables (analog) there is a big difference from cheap to mid price, but less of a difference to high price ones. In MY opinion, that is!
So get decent cables, but I would't spend insane amounts on it. As for optical/coax digital, if the signal get's there, the cable works. My 5 meter optical cable is real cheap, but sounds great!
So get decent cables, but I would't spend insane amounts on it. As for optical/coax digital, if the signal get's there, the cable works. My 5 meter optical cable is real cheap, but sounds great!
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2001
- Location
- Dundalk, Ireland
Coaxial and Optical are near identical.
If anything, coaxial is susceptible to interference if not properly shielded.
Optical cable is completely interference free. Yeah, you can buy a bracket for Lives! and Audigys that has a coaxial connector.
If anything, coaxial is susceptible to interference if not properly shielded.
Optical cable is completely interference free. Yeah, you can buy a bracket for Lives! and Audigys that has a coaxial connector.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2002
- Location
- Dunstable, uk
co-ax and optical ARE identical as far as any of us can tell. I used to use the optical connection on my nf7-s, but now i use a home-brew co-ax bracket and the sound is exactly the same.
It really is a waste of money to buy a card just for co-ax output.
It really is a waste of money to buy a card just for co-ax output.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2001
- Location
- Dundalk, Ireland
james.miller said:
Agreed. Find a bracket if you are really intent on having coaxial, otherwise, stick with the optical.
Coax and optical will be pretty much the same in sound quality. Even if there is a slight difference, your computer fans would probably cover them up anyways. There are pluses and minuses to each. Coax can pick up interference if it's not properly shielded but optical is less durable ie you can't do like tight bends on them. Personally I wouldn't go out of my way to choose one over the other, they're both digital and they'll both work fine.
Oh yeah, to answer you question, the M-audio Revolition 7.1 has coax output and so does the Audigy 2 ZS Platinum.
Oh yeah, to answer you question, the M-audio Revolition 7.1 has coax output and so does the Audigy 2 ZS Platinum.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2002
24/96 and 24/192 refer to recording quality of audio.
The first number is the bit-depth (or word length). This is how many bits are used to describe any given point on the representation of the wave form. The higher the bit depth, the higher the ability to describe the sound. Imagine a 2-bit recording. Each point on the wave would have four possible positions (not very descriptive).
The second number refers to the frequency that the audio was recorded at (in kilohertz). This is how many samples of the wave form are taken every second. The rule for the sample rate is that you must sample at twice the frequency of the actual sound to get an accurate sample.
For reference:
Most humans have a range of hearing from 20Hz to 20 or 22KHz. This means that sound that can be heard by humans can accurately be fairly well represented by recording at 40-44KHz. 96KHz represents sounds with a range up to 48KHz (which is possibly within some people's hearing range).
CD audio is recorded at 16/44.1
The higher the bit-depth (first number) the higher the file size for the same period of time.
The higher the sample-rate (second number) the higher the file size for the same period of time.
The first number is the bit-depth (or word length). This is how many bits are used to describe any given point on the representation of the wave form. The higher the bit depth, the higher the ability to describe the sound. Imagine a 2-bit recording. Each point on the wave would have four possible positions (not very descriptive).
The second number refers to the frequency that the audio was recorded at (in kilohertz). This is how many samples of the wave form are taken every second. The rule for the sample rate is that you must sample at twice the frequency of the actual sound to get an accurate sample.
For reference:
Most humans have a range of hearing from 20Hz to 20 or 22KHz. This means that sound that can be heard by humans can accurately be fairly well represented by recording at 40-44KHz. 96KHz represents sounds with a range up to 48KHz (which is possibly within some people's hearing range).
CD audio is recorded at 16/44.1
The higher the bit-depth (first number) the higher the file size for the same period of time.
The higher the sample-rate (second number) the higher the file size for the same period of time.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2002
Not all 24/96 audio is the same. There are a few things to consider.
Take for example the Sounb Blaster cards. On paper they have the highest recording rate for non-pro cards (and even many procards. However, they are considered lowend in the home recording studio. The biggest problem with Creative products is the poor driver support. So, drivers can definately effect the sound. The hard ware may (or may not be superior, but if it can't communicate well, the the over all effect is lessened. Currently, there stuff in on the edge of the consumer market, which can still provide a very good product.
ADC and DAC can be a weak point, if the converters are built poorly, cheaply, then there can be added noise, etc.... Converters have come a long way, but many small vendor may still use sub-par parts.
Some cards use system resources to help process these sounds. This could lead to strange noises and skippig/popping when the CPU usage reaches 100% (M-Audio, etc...) Some do this better than others. Some cards do most/all processing on board. This becomes more important when you play CPU intensive games.
Sound could even come down to the quality of the connectors. Not to mention speakers. Theoretically, they have the same max specs (or close), but real world expectations show that parts rarely meet their theoritical expectations.
96KHz & 192KHz sounds have been debated a lot. Many have come to the conclusion that the perceived difference is a result of the placebo effect (I know it's better, I spent more, it has to be better, there, you hear that, much better...) I won't say that no person can hear any difference, but it is unlikely.
However, there is a benifit to 192KHz, it gives you a much greater control of the final product (which would probably be converted one to many times before the final product. In this case it's like a director taking several shots of the same sceen for furture editting.
If you listen to music as the main point of your system, a card with a 96KHz output should be fine (as long as it is a good card Soundstorm, Audigy(2), etc...). Do some research, some 24bit/96KHz cards are junk, just like some GFti4600 cards were junk. The technology is the same, the GPU is the same, and yet different manufactures make variying quality cards.
Classic example:
TBSC 5.1
Playback compares well to new cards (many agree that it is better than the SBLive!) (96KHz)
Recording low for new cards (48KHz)
SBLive!
Decent playback (some say as good as or slightly lower than TBSC)96KHz
Recording was the top in it's time (96KHz)
So if you wanted to play games, many went to the TBSC, but if you wanted to record, many went with SBLive!
This is a brief description (that doesn't even cover the prosumer market). Just get a card that is suited to your needs and couple it with speakers that compliment the cards (good card + bad speakers = bad; bad card + good speakers = bad, bad card + bard speakers = bad, god card + good speakers = good). These parts rely on each other, so get a combo that plays well together.
Take for example the Sounb Blaster cards. On paper they have the highest recording rate for non-pro cards (and even many procards. However, they are considered lowend in the home recording studio. The biggest problem with Creative products is the poor driver support. So, drivers can definately effect the sound. The hard ware may (or may not be superior, but if it can't communicate well, the the over all effect is lessened. Currently, there stuff in on the edge of the consumer market, which can still provide a very good product.
ADC and DAC can be a weak point, if the converters are built poorly, cheaply, then there can be added noise, etc.... Converters have come a long way, but many small vendor may still use sub-par parts.
Some cards use system resources to help process these sounds. This could lead to strange noises and skippig/popping when the CPU usage reaches 100% (M-Audio, etc...) Some do this better than others. Some cards do most/all processing on board. This becomes more important when you play CPU intensive games.
Sound could even come down to the quality of the connectors. Not to mention speakers. Theoretically, they have the same max specs (or close), but real world expectations show that parts rarely meet their theoritical expectations.
96KHz & 192KHz sounds have been debated a lot. Many have come to the conclusion that the perceived difference is a result of the placebo effect (I know it's better, I spent more, it has to be better, there, you hear that, much better...) I won't say that no person can hear any difference, but it is unlikely.
However, there is a benifit to 192KHz, it gives you a much greater control of the final product (which would probably be converted one to many times before the final product. In this case it's like a director taking several shots of the same sceen for furture editting.
If you listen to music as the main point of your system, a card with a 96KHz output should be fine (as long as it is a good card Soundstorm, Audigy(2), etc...). Do some research, some 24bit/96KHz cards are junk, just like some GFti4600 cards were junk. The technology is the same, the GPU is the same, and yet different manufactures make variying quality cards.
Classic example:
TBSC 5.1
Playback compares well to new cards (many agree that it is better than the SBLive!) (96KHz)
Recording low for new cards (48KHz)
SBLive!
Decent playback (some say as good as or slightly lower than TBSC)96KHz
Recording was the top in it's time (96KHz)
So if you wanted to play games, many went to the TBSC, but if you wanted to record, many went with SBLive!
This is a brief description (that doesn't even cover the prosumer market). Just get a card that is suited to your needs and couple it with speakers that compliment the cards (good card + bad speakers = bad; bad card + good speakers = bad, bad card + bard speakers = bad, god card + good speakers = good). These parts rely on each other, so get a combo that plays well together.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2002
The short version, all 96KHz cards should have the capability of sounding the same, but only if the DAC and ADC are good and the other parts (speakers, capacitors, etc... are of good quality.
Also, some cards are not true 24/96 (even though they are advetised as such). In some cases, 4 bits can be used for other reasons (this would also make them sound slightly different (but no much).
Things that make the different are quality of assembly, features, and drivers/support.
Many in the music industry fell that the move from 16/48 (which is remixed to 16/44.1 for CDs) is all well ever need. But then, would would ever need more the 64K of RAM.
Also, some cards are not true 24/96 (even though they are advetised as such). In some cases, 4 bits can be used for other reasons (this would also make them sound slightly different (but no much).
Things that make the different are quality of assembly, features, and drivers/support.
Many in the music industry fell that the move from 16/48 (which is remixed to 16/44.1 for CDs) is all well ever need. But then, would would ever need more the 64K of RAM.
- Thread Starter
- #19
thanks for the info, im sticking with my soundstorm, ive got digitheatre dts speakers and some chunky cable, ixos 6006, 10m 6004 bi wire and 10m 6003, the 6006 is so thick i cant get it to fit my speakers, but i got it real cheap on ebay, i know the digitheatre is getting on, im not sure what that counts for though, they cost £399 in thier day but im not sure how speakers age? the sub woofer is huge, the difference to my old sub woofer is obvious with explosions and thunder, very excellent. im going to get a ven den optocoupler for my interconnect, i wouldnt have a lot of faith in a cheap cable, im probably an audiophool, but i want the best i can get out of my system, the cables cost more than the speakers but they make a huge difference i think, ive only got the front ones connected so far with the ixos 6006 cable, but the difference in the response is so that when my front and rear speakers are set to equal levels - i can set all speakers individually - they sound the same with my rear speakers 6 inches from my ear and my front speakers 6 foot away, maybe theres other reasons for it? anyway, happy days i guess, im off to play mohaas, see ya there if ya play, im tarzan by the way.
