Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
ajc426
0
Jul 22, 2014
Would there a big difference in sound quality if I used this with a PCI sound card? Or do you guys recommend just using my inboard sound?
booooooooo
60
Jul 22, 2014
ajc426A GOOD sound card would make a huge difference because on-board audio isn't that good to begin with.
Doug-0
7
Jul 22, 2014
ajc426It really depends on which onboard audio chipset you have... Some are actually quite good.
booooooooo
60
Jul 23, 2014
Doug-0Some are good, for an on board, but that has its limits. If you want something better you have to pay more. And you'll pick up more noise with an on board so that's a flaw all on it's own.
Doug-0
7
Jul 23, 2014
boooooooooNot according to Tom's Hardware's blind testing (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733-10.html). Even if they're wrong, we're talking about $100 desktop speakers here, not super hi-fidelity $10k speakers.
booooooooo
60
Jul 23, 2014
Doug-0I don't think you understood what I said, nor the results of the blind tests. "Only Realtek's ALC889 codec could not quite get there due to its technical limitations." As I said above, there are limitations, and it is even stated in that article. There are many flaws with on-board audio, and that's why people pay more for sound cards and external devices. For me, that flaw is noise coming from all the other equipment attached to the motherboard, lack of depth, power, detail, and many other reasons. For $100 speakers, buying a $2000 amp definitely isn't worth it, but it might help to buy a GOOD $30 sound card if you don't have a DECENT on-board audio. Remember that not everyone builds their own computer, and not everyone buys the best computer. Most people are using low end motherboards with low end on-board audio. When I first plugged my HD558(around $100) into my computer with my cheap motherboard it lost most of its sound stage and sounded like cheap closed headphones. When I plugged it into my DX90($400) all the sound stage and life came back. When I tried a $30 sound card, I got most of what my DX90 could pump out. It's a whole different story for high-end headphones though where you'll need that extra power.
Oh, btw don't take blind tests too seriously. They're flawed in their own ways, and that's even more true when it comes to audio.
Doug-0
7
Jul 23, 2014
boooooooooIf, as you say, onboard audio is riddled with noise, don't you expect that the blind testers could've pinpointed the onboard audio out whenever it was playing? Or at least most of the time? Because that wasn't the case here.
And you're correct that blind testing has it's flaws when it comes to audio, but that doesn't mean you should completely discount them. I feel that in this case, Tom's reasonably demonstrated that there is not a significant difference in quality between a good onboard audio chipset and other, more expensive options. And they were using an HD800 in this case, a headphone that costs over a thousand dollars and is considered to be super-high resolution.
Lastly, you're anecdote of plugging your headphones into different sources is FAR more useless than a blind test due to this little thing called the placebo effect, which happens to be even more powerful in the realm of audio than other areas of perception. Your mind is capable of manipulating what it hears into just about anything it wants. Perception is way more complicated that it looks as first glance. The brain isn't just some passive listener, it is an active signal processor.
At the end of the day, you should do what makes you happy. If that means spending lots of money on expensive audio equipment, that's fine, you will be rewarded whether or not there's an objective difference in sound quality. If there isn't, the placebo effect will make it sound better anyway, and in turn, make you happier. Me, personally, being frugal when possible makes me happy :)
booooooooo
60
Jul 23, 2014
Doug-0They failed to match volumes on the HD800 so I don't really get what you're trying to say. "We also had some issues with volume-matching the Realtek ALC889, and those are called out where they're relevant."
And then "Due to time constraints, not all listeners tested all content."
With his blind testing, he made a lot of flaws. He's pretty much saying "I won't count this because it's obvious" or "I won't do that". And with some tests, all users got it correct. What matters the most is who and what is being tested. Someone with experience with listening to audio will be able to pick up the differences. Someone like my dad can't even tell the difference between $10 headphones and $100 headphones, unless you're telling me there's no difference between that either.
All I'm saying is don't be a fool to believe a hobbyist who writes an article who's opinion differs from the experts, and the majority of those who actually tried it.
I don't even think you read the full article. You read part of it, the parts you want to see, so you could convince yourself to believe you're getting the best. Can't we say you're doing the exact same? You don't even know who wrote it(It isn't Tom).
Doug-0
7
Jul 24, 2014
boooooooooDo you realize the implications of bad volume matching? It would make it easier to differentiate the sources if the volumes were improperly matched. So if anything, that flaw in their tests would create results that would lean towards your hypothesis that they are indeed differentiable. Regardless, the flaw only affected some of their testing, and they pointed out specifically in which tests the flaw was present.
If anything, it makes the results more believable that they took the time to point out the flaws in their own study.
I read the entire article, however I'm really doubting that you did. The results overwhelmingly pointed to the conclusion that there is not a significant difference in quality/noise/whatever between the three sources. Hell, their conclusion page's title is literally "Anything Above $2 Buys More Features, Not Better Quality". That was their conclusion after analyzing their results and taking into account the flaws, which they talked about in detail.
I dunno why you so strongly want there to exist an objectively perceivable difference between sources. All that matters at the end of the day is the subjectively perceived difference. If you hear a difference, then you hear a difference, and no one can tell you otherwise. But never assume that the difference is anywhere besides within the confines of your own mind.
Do not underestimate the power of selective perception. I've witnessed it first hand in quite a few extreme cases. In one case, I picked up a container that had water in it, that I thought was lemonade. I took a few gulps, not noticing anything out of the ordinary. It wasn't until I saw the contents that I realized that I had drunk water, not lemonade. I tasted lemonade, not water. But I only had water.
If you truly believe something with all your heart, you will realize it.
If the brain can do that, it surely can manipulate the subtleties of music, which are FAR more subtle than the difference in taste between lemonade and water.
Anyway, I think it would be best to stop this conversation, as it doesn't really pertain to the product that's supposed to be discussed here. Though I wouldn't be opposed to continuing it elsewhere, if you'd really like to. Arguing is my pastime.
PRODUCTS YOU MAY LIKE
Trending Posts in Audiophile