Why use aftermarket?

A

AMD T-type

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Messages
4,590
I've always used a aftermarket sound card, as opposed to onboard, since I first started building computer many years ago...

Just recently I removed my Audigy2 from my computer to try and isolate a separate issue I was having and started using the onboard for awhile.
The onboard is surround and so are my speakers, but I honestly don't notice that much of a difference from the Audigy2 I was using.
I do alot of gaming, and listening to music, and have available to me an equalizer to get the sound just where I like it.

So I ask, why not use the onboard?
 
What motherboard do you have? If it's a newer one (last 1-2 years) it probably has on par sound with the soundcard, as Audigy 2 came out in '02.
 
Comparing a modern onboard to a older add-in card may level the playing field somewhat. Also what you are using for speakers/heapdhones will also make a difference.

If you were using a modern add/in card then you know there is no comparison.
 
I understand there is no comparison, that's all anyone ever says when I bring the subject up.
But my question is, what is it that makes it no comparison? At what point do you gain the benefits from having an add in card?

I know back when the Audigy was first released a big thing was CPU cycles. The Audigy didn't require much use of the CPU whereas onboard did, but now with quad core CPU's and beyond that point is pretty much null.

My motherboard is in my sig, and I have Logitech Z-5300 speakers / Sennheiser HD212 Pro's
 
FatFed said:
What motherboard do you have? If it's a newer one (last 1-2 years) it probably has on par sound with the soundcard, as Audigy 2 came out in '02.
Click to expand...
The Audigy 2 is still significantly better than most onboard solutions despite its age. In fact, it specs out almost identically to most X-Fis.
 
AMD T-type said:
I understand there is no comparison, that's all anyone ever says when I bring the subject up.
But my question is, what is it that makes it no comparison? At what point do you gain the benefits from having an add in card?
Click to expand...

If you're using a digital connection, not a lot. For analog output, the signal has to be converted from digital first, and the component that handles this (the DAC), has a significant impact on sound quality. Many onboard solutions will use the cheapest available, while an aftermarket card is likely to use a more expensive DAC.

DSP effects will also affect the sound, though not necessarily for better or worse. EAX, CMSS, and other Creative technologies will have probably have analogues in your onboard sound, but they probably won't sound the same.
 
Alai said:
That's probably why there's no difference in sound quality. Rofl.
Click to expand...

So the reason one would need an add in card over onboard would be in the case of having an audio system worth as much as their computer basically.....
 
Auric said:
If you're using a digital connection, not a lot. For analog output, the signal has to be converted from digital first, and the component that handles this (the DAC), has a significant impact on sound quality. Many onboard solutions will use the cheapest available, while an aftermarket card is likely to use a more expensive DAC.

DSP effects will also affect the sound, though not necessarily for better or worse. EAX, CMSS, and other Creative technologies will have probably have analogues in your onboard sound, but they probably won't sound the same.
Click to expand...

Also, thanks
This is basically what I was looking for.
 
Wait... how did you come to this conclusion? And how much did you pay for your computer?

AMD T-type said:
So the reason one would need an add in card over onboard would be in the case of having an audio system worth as much as their computer basically.....
Click to expand...
 
It's like putting premium gas in a GEO metro.......your not going to see a difference. But if you put normal gas into a performance racing bike you will notice a difference.

Just like you I can't tell the difference because I have crappy speakers. With a good sound system you will need a good sound card.

Normal speakers take a normal sound card.

That is how I understand it, if it wasn't better it wouldn't sell.
 
Alai said:
Wait... how did you come to this conclusion? And how much did you pay for your computer?
Click to expand...

Your opinion would seem to be that the Z-5300's are not a good set of speakers, and according to ADDICT76 the Z-5500's are "cheapo speakers".

A vast majority of computer users are going to have a setup similar to mine (ie. surround logitechs, klipchs, etc) so going by your logic their sound system is insufficient even for onboard audio.
Seeing as how the Z-5500's are a $300 set of speakers, i'm almost scared to ask what I should have
 
The 5300s ARE crap, but only when compared to the 5500s. The 5500s are an outstanding set of PC speakers.
 
Just because you paid $300 doesn't mean they are worth $300.

There was an Onkyo 5.1 setup going around that was for about $300 that would blow away Logicrap's surround setup. I believe Yamaha had one going as well. I'll list one or two, but there are more out there:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...e-_-Home+Theater+in+a+Box-_-Yamaha-_-82115124
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...le-_-Home+Theater+in+a+Box-_-Onkyo-_-82120085

Also, generally speaking, it is better to build up to 5.1 rather than getting a 5.1 setup deal. Start with a 2.1 setup with a 5.1 receiver. Then add another 2.0 pair. Then add a center speaker later. Yes, it will cost more (for a decent complete 5.1 from scratch, maybe a total of $600 at minimum). Yes, it will obliterate most 5.1 setup deals that cost the same.

In my opinion, this is better because, not only will you end up with a baller 5.1 setup, your intial 2.1 setup with receiver will cost about the same as Logicrap 5.1 deals, but will sound better with music and possibly even gaming/movies when you use virtual surround sound from your soundcard.

AMD T-type said:
Your opinion would seem to be that the Z-5300's are not a good set of speakers, and according to ADDICT76 the Z-5500's are "cheapo speakers".

A vast majority of computer users are going to have a setup similar to mine (ie. surround logitechs, klipchs, etc) so going by your logic their sound system is insufficient even for onboard audio.
Seeing as how the Z-5500's are a $300 set of speakers, i'm almost scared to ask what I should have
Click to expand...
 
ok.... my point of the thread isn't about computer speakers...

Lets say someone is using whatever sound system you can dream up with the onboard optical output.
Would the signal not have to go through a DAC in this case?
What benefit is an add-in sound card going to have for them now.

This is my question.


edit: and Alai, in my specific case I dont really care for an elaborate sound system on my computer as I already have one hooked to my Shuttle HTPC.

IMG_3381.JPG
 
I really couldn't tell the difference between onboard and dedicated sound cards. I'm sure there is MUCH more room to be gained sound quality wise by properly adjusting your speakers in terms of both physical location and levels.

That being said, I run a sound card because I need the additional outputs. My onboard sound drives my desktop sepakers while my soundcard runs sound to my headphones. When I ran a second monitor (32" LCD TV) I could simultaneously pipe sound and video to playback TV for the gf to watch while I would play a game on my monitor using the headphones - pretty nifty.
 
vsboxerboy said:
I really couldn't tell the difference between onboard and dedicated sound cards. I'm sure there is MUCH more room to be gained sound quality wise by properly adjusting your speakers in terms of both physical location and levels.

That being said, I run a sound card because I need the additional outputs. My onboard sound drives my desktop sepakers while my soundcard runs sound to my headphones. When I ran a second monitor (32" LCD TV) I could simultaneously pipe sound and video to playback TV for the gf to watch while I would play a game on my monitor using the headphones - pretty nifty.
Click to expand...

Not to derail my own thread, but isn't this unpossible?
I wasn't aware you could drive two separate sound chipsets at the same time
 
You can't do one program across two devices but two programs on separate devices works fine. All I would do was launch MCE then change the default playback device (right click the speaker icon in the tray, select playback devices, set the new default) and all applications opened after the default was changed would use the new default. Because MCE was opened under the old default, it would continue to use the old default playback device.

Some apps have issues when alt+tabbing from full screen and would grab the new default though. I wish you could just assign applications to a playback device - that would be so useful.

edit: just tried it in 7 and vista, and it only seems to work in vista
 
Nice setup.

And yeah, if that was indeed the objective of your post, Auric certainly got you covered. But I didn't see your question in the thread so I kept rambling.

AMD T-type said:
Lets say someone is using whatever sound system you can dream up with the onboard optical output.
Would the signal not have to go through a DAC in this case?
What benefit is an add-in sound card going to have for them now.

This is my question.
IMG_3381.JPG
Click to expand...
 
Alai said:
Just because you paid $300 doesn't mean they are worth $300.

There was an Onkyo 5.1 setup going around that was for about $300 that would blow away Logicrap's surround setup. I believe Yamaha had one going as well. I'll list one or two, but there are more out there:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...e-_-Home+Theater+in+a+Box-_-Yamaha-_-82115124
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...le-_-Home+Theater+in+a+Box-_-Onkyo-_-82120085

Also, generally speaking, it is better to build up to 5.1 rather than getting a 5.1 setup deal. Start with a 2.1 setup with a 5.1 receiver. Then add another 2.0 pair. Then add a center speaker later. Yes, it will cost more (for a decent complete 5.1 from scratch, maybe a total of $600 at minimum). Yes, it will obliterate most 5.1 setup deals that cost the same.

In my opinion, this is better because, not only will you end up with a baller 5.1 setup, your intial 2.1 setup with receiver will cost about the same as Logicrap 5.1 deals, but will sound better with music and possibly even gaming/movies when you use virtual surround sound from your soundcard.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
phide said:
The Audigy 2 is still significantly better than most onboard solutions despite its age. In fact, it specs out almost identically to most X-Fis.
Click to expand...

Specs aren't end all, be all. I thought the onboard sound of my old P45 sounded better than the Audigy 2, then again I didn't have both very long to compare so I could have been hearing things.
 
FatFed said:
Specs aren't end all, be all. I thought the onboard sound of my old P45 sounded better than the Audigy 2, then again I didn't have both very long to compare so I could have been hearing things.
Click to expand...
You weren't wrong. The Audigys are piles of junk, they re-sample all input signals to 48khz, regardless of whether you're using the soundcard's built in DAC or an external. It's fine for movies, it's not for music. Actual SNR on the Audigys is also terrible. I used to own a 2ZS Platinum Pro that was spec'd at 108db SNR. There was noticeable hiss from min to max volume. My 1212m has absolutely no hiss at any volume.
 
Strange that I actually find a notable difference between my Audigy and my on-board HD P.O.S. Realtek.

Considering that my motherboard is of a new make, one would think that it would kick my Audigy's ass, but the clarity is noticeably better on the Audigy! Too bad Creative's support for Vista is equal to putting ham in between two pieces of bread and calling it a sandwich... IT STILL NEEDS CONDIMENTS! I would love to see a Creative card with some analogical mustard on it!

Can't wait until I get my HT Omega and new speakers.
 
FatFed said:
Specs aren't end all, be all. I thought the onboard sound of my old P45 sounded better than the Audigy 2, then again I didn't have both very long to compare so I could have been hearing things.
Click to expand...
"Sounded better" is entirely subjective. That onboard solution may have added coloration you found pleasing, but it's likely it spec'd out much, much worse than the Audigy 2. When we're talking about specs, we're talking about sonic linearality and the ability to produce a "clean" output, not what subjectively sounds better or worse. That's a different debate entirely.

You made it seem as if the past six years of audio IC development has completely obsoleted the Audigy 2, when that really couldn't be further from the truth.

skyline889 said:
The Audigys are piles of junk, they re-sample all input signals to 48khz, regardless of whether you're using the soundcard's built in DAC or an external.
Click to expand...
Just to throw this out there, if I resampled a 44.1 kHz file to 48 kHz using the worst real-time resampler I could find (kMixer's is far from the worst real-time implementation I've seen, believe me), I'd be willing to bet you'd be unable to perceive any differences in a double-blind A/B test. It's 2009 already...let's think about getting over the resampling hysteria that was all the rage some four years ago.

skyline889 said:
Actual SNR on the Audigys is also terrible. I used to own a 2ZS Platinum Pro that was spec'd at 108db SNR. There was noticeable hiss from min to max volume.
Click to expand...
That sounds like an isolated issue to me. The Audigy 2's analog outs should (and typically do) produce an SNR very close to what Creative advertised. What was your setup at that time and how was it configured?

I had no such issues with noise or hiss with my Audigy 2 before I smashed it, for whatever that's worth.
 
Never had any hiss issues with my (modded) Audigy 2ZS. I did notice something strange when listening to music without using a software resampler. I can only describe it as a weird noise around music notes. String instruments, for example, would have a weird fuzz or echo quality to them. Not that any of that matters since I use my 0404 for music...:)
 
phide said:
Just to throw this out there, if I resampled a 44.1 kHz file to 48 kHz using the worst real-time resampler I could find (kMixer's is far from the worst real-time implementation I've seen, believe me), I'd be willing to bet you'd be unable to perceive any differences in a double-blind A/B test. It's 2009 already...let's think about getting over the resampling hysteria that was all the rage some four years ago.
Click to expand...

You believe what you want, I'll believe what I've heard from my experience. That's all I'm saying about this. I have no desire to get into another flame war about this topic.

phide said:
That sounds like an isolated issue to me. The Audigy 2's analog outs should (and typically do) produce an SNR very close to what Creative advertised. What was your setup at that time and how was it configured?

I had no such issues with noise or hiss with my Audigy 2 before I smashed it, for whatever that's worth.
Click to expand...

It was not an isolated issue. I had my soundcard running to multiple amps during the time I owned that card including a vintage Pioneer QX8000A, a vintage NAD 3150, a vintage Marantz 1060B, an NAD C352, and a Denon PMA-2000IVR and output the signal to a pair of Klipsch RF-82s and eventually a pair of Klipsch RB-25s, both are high sensitivity speakers fwiw. I also ran the output to a Corda Audio Head-Five (2 of them) and an RSA Emmeline SR-71 and output to a pair of Grado HF-1s, Grado HP-2s, Sennheiser HD600s, Sennheiser HD650s, and Headphile MDR-CD3000s to name a few. Every one exhibited the same background hiss. I have used lower model Audigy's as well and they all have exhibited the same or higher levels of background noise. Your results may vary from equipment used and your sensitivity to noise, these are just my experiences. The X-Fis I have used (Fatal1ty Pro and Extreme Music) have not exhibited this feedback.
 
AMD T-type said:
So the reason one would need an add in card over onboard would be in the case of having an audio system worth as much as their computer basically.....
Click to expand...

no, cause you are probably dumping the sound out via S/PDIF to your stereo system which is a pure raw digital signal, which means on board vs sound card makes 0 difference. :)
 
MrGuvernment said:
no, cause you are probably dumping the sound out via S/PDIF to your stereo system which is a pure raw digital signal, which means on board vs sound card makes 0 difference. :)
Click to expand...

Audio fidelity-wise, yes... But I still want a soundcard for virtual surround sound and encoding in DDL and such...
 
skyline889 said:
You believe what you want, I'll believe what I've heard from my experience. That's all I'm saying about this.
Click to expand...
That's fine, but it seems like if you were to go around knocking certain cards because they resample to 48 kHz (in compliance with AC97), but have nothing to suggest that such resampling is truly audible to you, or to any typical user (not debating the pure mathematical degradation aspect of non-integral real-time upsampling, which is potentially pretty rough), how can that possibly count against the card badly enough for you to call it "junk"? It strikes me as somewhat irrational and borderline sensational.

skyline889 said:
It was not an isolated issue....Your results may vary from equipment used and your sensitivity to noise, these are just my experiences. The X-Fis I have used (Fatal1ty Pro and Extreme Music) have not exhibited this feedback.
Click to expand...
Well, as I mentioned, that's fairly unusual. I'm not doubting that you experienced that, but I can only say that such a thing is atypical given how the card performs in RMAA loopback testing and other tests (like I said, almost identically to the X-Fi, often times exceeding it in measured THD even).

Did you ever run do any loopback testing on your Audigys, by chance?

AMD T-type said:
Why virtual surround over physical surround?
Click to expand...
Typically people use virtual surround (i.e. HRTF in the form of Dolby Headphone or CMSS3D 2) for headphones. Depending on which headphones you use, the effect can be fairly convincing.
 
AMD T-type said:
Why virtual surround over physical surround?
Click to expand...

I don't have room around me to set up an physical surround sound. Nor do I want to spend $300 for a subpar sound when I can spend $300 for excellent sound and build my way up to 5.1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top