![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Speakers for my computer
- Thread starter Rinthe
- Start date
excellsior
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2006
- Messages
- 323
I'm considering the 1080's or the MAudio and I have a SB Xtreme Music.
If I buy a Dayton sub do I connect it into my soundcard or does it go directly into these speakers?
Also I know the MAudio has 2 input sources so I can have one to my PC and another device (keyboard/tv/etc). Does anyone know if the 1080 has 2 inputs?
If I buy a Dayton sub do I connect it into my soundcard or does it go directly into these speakers?
Also I know the MAudio has 2 input sources so I can have one to my PC and another device (keyboard/tv/etc). Does anyone know if the 1080 has 2 inputs?
i don't see how this has anything to do with...
excellsior
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2006
- Messages
- 323
Why not? People are talking about the 1080s and MAudios and rather start a new thread about it why can't I ask my question here?
I don't see posting your opinion about it helped in any way.
I don't see posting your opinion about it helped in any way.
You might get a better answer if your start your own thread bro.. also it might help other ppl looking for the same answer locate it better through search.
Hmm what?
These days, strong maybe leaning towards no. "I play games" is also worlds different from "I want my computer and sound system for games and only games because all I do is play counterstrike all day and all night."
A receiver is a piece of A/V equipment. A sound card is a computer component.
A receiver is intended to take multiple inputs, handle them as necessary (provide amplification, convert digital signals to analog, sometimes convert analog video to HDMI or whatever as a bonus feature) and forward them to a set of speakers and possibly a video display. It generally also has a headphone jack which means it can also act as a DAC/amp for headphones (if not necessarily as good of one as a device designed explicitly for that purpose could be).
A sound card provides a device for software to address in order to generate digital output. It also provides (very poor) DAC functionality and amplification functionality since speakers and headphones can't do anything with a digital signal (analog only) or an unamplified one (the volume would be nonexistent). It also can provide processing for codecs and some audio technologies like EAX which are basically fancy ways of processing multiple sources and environmental conditions in hardware in order to avoid loading the CPU. Since modern CPUs are ridiculously more powerful than they were at the time when we started moving to sound cards, we can easily handle this sort of thing in software now. Usually, games do, often whether you want a sound card to be doing it in hardware or not. Sometimes the games still use technologies that require specific hardware support to hear all the audio, or you want to play older games that similarly can't be made to function fully without specific hardware support. This is usually not worth screwing with because 1) you can usually get most things to work in software and few developers want to tie themselves down to a specific subset of possible computers their game could otherwise be installed on, 2) there are so many different audio standards that chasing hardware support is a losing proposition to start with.
Any questions? What it boils down to is: get a sound card if your motherboard has no digital output. Otherwise, you generally can get an external device (receiver, USB DAC, etc) that will sound better for the same money. Sound cards are stuck with the electrical noise inside the computer and with significant size and power constraints that just are not a factor when designing an external device. It's like the "big speaker, small speaker" issue we were talking about - they *could* make an internal device that gives the same quality as any given external device in your budget range - but it would almost certainly cost much more!
A receiver is a piece of A/V equipment. A sound card is a computer component.
A receiver is intended to take multiple inputs, handle them as necessary (provide amplification, convert digital signals to analog, sometimes convert analog video to HDMI or whatever as a bonus feature) and forward them to a set of speakers and possibly a video display. It generally also has a headphone jack which means it can also act as a DAC/amp for headphones (if not necessarily as good of one as a device designed explicitly for that purpose could be).
A sound card provides a device for software to address in order to generate digital output. It also provides (very poor) DAC functionality and amplification functionality since speakers and headphones can't do anything with a digital signal (analog only) or an unamplified one (the volume would be nonexistent). It also can provide processing for codecs and some audio technologies like EAX which are basically fancy ways of processing multiple sources and environmental conditions in hardware in order to avoid loading the CPU. Since modern CPUs are ridiculously more powerful than they were at the time when we started moving to sound cards, we can easily handle this sort of thing in software now. Usually, games do, often whether you want a sound card to be doing it in hardware or not. Sometimes the games still use technologies that require specific hardware support to hear all the audio, or you want to play older games that similarly can't be made to function fully without specific hardware support. This is usually not worth screwing with because 1) you can usually get most things to work in software and few developers want to tie themselves down to a specific subset of possible computers their game could otherwise be installed on, 2) there are so many different audio standards that chasing hardware support is a losing proposition to start with.
Any questions? What it boils down to is: get a sound card if your motherboard has no digital output. Otherwise, you generally can get an external device (receiver, USB DAC, etc) that will sound better for the same money. Sound cards are stuck with the electrical noise inside the computer and with significant size and power constraints that just are not a factor when designing an external device. It's like the "big speaker, small speaker" issue we were talking about - they *could* make an internal device that gives the same quality as any given external device in your budget range - but it would almost certainly cost much more!
Wow ashmedai, thanks for taking the time writing a detailed response! I understand now, thank you!
I will give myself sometime to think about this, i won't get anything else until my speaker arrives first anyways I will give myself sometime to think about this, i won't get anything else until my speaker arrives first anyways
Good plan.
Oh, and you don't actually need a digital out on the motherboard with a USB DAC. One of the reasons they're such a nifty option - very flexible.
The Zero DAC is very popular. It's a little tricky to track down where to buy other than eBay, though, since it's an import job.
USB DACs for the most part are stereo devices (also note that many of them also include an amp circuit). Receivers will be a major upgrade for you, but might not have as high quality a chip in the DAC circuit in order to reduce the build cost (and increase profit margins). Receivers do, however, bring many other abilities to the table that a DAC-only device isn't built to do. Receiver choice is often dependent on what's on sale when you buy, but I'm using an Onkyo unit that I picked up on refurb. There are a few well-known brands like that which will reliably give you solid results. However, any but perhaps the absolute worst will trump any but perhaps the absolute best (or at least much more expensive) sound cards - AND, you cannot run full speakers from a sound card unless they have built-in amps like the 1080 does. There is not really a large upgrade path for you from the 1080s without tossing out the sound card at some point.
One upgrade I'm looking at myself is adding a USB DAC to my current system. I'm using a receiver now, but if I got a USB DAC with a better DAC chip, I could feed it into my receiver as an analog signal and let the receiver only act as the amplifier (provided, of course, that I choose a USB DAC that either does not amplify or has an amplifier that can be disabled). Incremental upgrades are great!
USB DACs for the most part are stereo devices (also note that many of them also include an amp circuit). Receivers will be a major upgrade for you, but might not have as high quality a chip in the DAC circuit in order to reduce the build cost (and increase profit margins). Receivers do, however, bring many other abilities to the table that a DAC-only device isn't built to do. Receiver choice is often dependent on what's on sale when you buy, but I'm using an Onkyo unit that I picked up on refurb. There are a few well-known brands like that which will reliably give you solid results. However, any but perhaps the absolute worst will trump any but perhaps the absolute best (or at least much more expensive) sound cards - AND, you cannot run full speakers from a sound card unless they have built-in amps like the 1080 does. There is not really a large upgrade path for you from the 1080s without tossing out the sound card at some point.
One upgrade I'm looking at myself is adding a USB DAC to my current system. I'm using a receiver now, but if I got a USB DAC with a better DAC chip, I could feed it into my receiver as an analog signal and let the receiver only act as the amplifier (provided, of course, that I choose a USB DAC that either does not amplify or has an amplifier that can be disabled). Incremental upgrades are great!
Since my speakers are pretty must just for my PC, i don't think i need all the different inputs that i get with the receiver. DAC-only devices are probably my best bet, or a sound card... still debating, not sure which games actually uses the CPU to do all the audio stuff.
anyways, is the Zero DAC a DAC-only device? and i did some searches, seems like it's pretty damn hard to get, any other recommendations?
anyways, is the Zero DAC a DAC-only device? and i did some searches, seems like it's pretty damn hard to get, any other recommendations?
I'm looking at the iBasso DAC/amp devices right now, myself. The quality looks very high and some models have line-out functionality (i.e. you can choose not to let it amplify) like the just-released D3. It's on $200 though, and the D3 uses batteries that have to be charged externally (only every ~100 hours, though - probably less in DAC-only mode). There are loads of options, though.
The Zero is something like $150, a large part of which is from the international shipping. The Head-Fi writeup says it can work as a pre-amp, so it should be fine for speaker use too. Apparently it has separate outputs and a toggle switch and everything.
The amp in the Zero probably is not be enough for speakers, which are much larger than headphones. Pre-amp functionality allows you to run it through a larger amp afterwards, bypassing the built-in amplification. Double amplification is BAD and will introduce mad noise and attenuate your sound in all sorts of irregular ways. You should NOT run a DAC/amp whose amp cannot be disabled into any other amplifier. Fortunately - the Zero is one that will work with other amps. AND let you use it as a headphone amp without changing any connections or anything - again, nothing but a press of the switch.
It probably means FLAC or something like that (without seeing the exact paragraph). If you feed crappy overcompressed music into an awesome sound system, it will still sound like crap when it comes out.
Here we go:
"It is designed to take a clean digital source and convert it to really great headphone and pre-amp output."
Yes, it means that your source audio should be good quality, not over-compressed, not full of noise that is inherent to the recording. The best one can hope for is that the DAC will take a high quality digital signal and turn it into a high quality analog signal - it will do that. Turning crap into gold is just magic.
astrallite
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 967
A good original source with a component encoder is a good start for quality music. I think the MP3 thing is being overblown here, your average Dolby TrueHD movie is only running at 350kbps (per 2 channels). It's a definite improvement over Dolby Digital 5.1's 149.33kbps/2 output though.
I have above average hearing (out to 17KHz) and honestly a high bitrate mp3 and a FLAC file, in general I really can't tell the difference in a blind test. I'm not saying no one can, but even among people with very high end gear (much more expensive that what I have--and my setup is 10k), for the younger and less computer-terrified group, you'll find them much more open to admitting the differences between well-encoded sources at different bitrates not exactly extremely audible, and almost impossible to spot in a DBX. That said, I still use FLAC, not because I can hear the difference, but it just makes me feel more at ease. The same reason I upsample my music to 88.2KHz; I don't have hearing up to the Nyquist sampling frequency (22.05KHz), but it's nice to know even if I could, I wouldn't hear it.
I have above average hearing (out to 17KHz) and honestly a high bitrate mp3 and a FLAC file, in general I really can't tell the difference in a blind test. I'm not saying no one can, but even among people with very high end gear (much more expensive that what I have--and my setup is 10k), for the younger and less computer-terrified group, you'll find them much more open to admitting the differences between well-encoded sources at different bitrates not exactly extremely audible, and almost impossible to spot in a DBX. That said, I still use FLAC, not because I can hear the difference, but it just makes me feel more at ease. The same reason I upsample my music to 88.2KHz; I don't have hearing up to the Nyquist sampling frequency (22.05KHz), but it's nice to know even if I could, I wouldn't hear it.
topdog5050
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2008
- Messages
- 832
Hey,I would get a set of the Logitech they have always been great for me and if you got the money get a sound card not the onboard sound unless thats all you got.
Probably not as huge a step as going to the 1080s, but still pretty substantial.
Some of these changes e.g. DAC improvements start getting into territory that more "passive" listeners might not notice easily. If you're paying attention to the music, yes, but if you have it on while distracted with other things it can be harder to tell until you get accustomed to the new level of quality.
IMO you need one, and will appreciate it, but will appreciate it more if you wait until you get more used to the 1080s.
Some of these changes e.g. DAC improvements start getting into territory that more "passive" listeners might not notice easily. If you're paying attention to the music, yes, but if you have it on while distracted with other things it can be harder to tell until you get accustomed to the new level of quality.
IMO you need one, and will appreciate it, but will appreciate it more if you wait until you get more used to the 1080s.
thank you! i guess i'll just enjoy my 1080s for awhile then ;P
That's what I'd do, anyway. Definitely revisit this in a few months - but for now, it is all kinds of awesome compared to what you're used to, which is what you can appreciate anyway. It will give you plenty of time to research and possibly test a few models in the mean time (Head-Fi account is a good start if you haven't joined there yet...).
Mine are about a meter away from my head at a 60 degree angle, but focused about a meter behind me since I'm not the only one that listens to 'em. You don't want them too close if you can give them a little distance, but bookshelves are decent at short range. You don't want to be too far either, but I don't think you can really get far enough for that to matter in a desk scenario.