AMD Audio: How does it work?

[cmdrdredd]

The good thing is you can still get 5.1 from games via HDMI too. Makes for a very simple setup as I said before. Whether not you tell a difference between that and sending the audio out via analog is something only you can determine. A lot of it relies on your speakers. I would probably just do HDMI if I didn't have my Klipsch pro media 5.1 PC set. I am honestly very underwhelmed by PC speakers in today's market. I also don't use headphones at all for gaming so I could not begin to comment on that aspect of sound cards.

 

[Lonbjerg]

The good thing is you can still get 5.1 from games via HDMI too. Makes for a very simple setup as I said before. Whether not you tell a difference between that and sending the audio out via analog is something only you can determine. A lot of it relies on your speakers. I would probably just do HDMI if I didn't have my Klipsch pro media 5.1 PC set. I am honestly very underwhelmed by PC speakers in today's market. I also don't use headphones at all for gaming so I could not begin to comment on that aspect of sound cards.

My point was that a soundcard ADDS to the sound before it's sent via HDMI/Analog/pixiefaieries...some peopel seem to ignore that fact and think sound from onboard over HDMI = same as sound from a soundcard via digital transission...it's not 😉

 

[stuup1dmofo]

My point was that a soundcard ADDS to the sound before it's sent via HDMI/Analog/pixiefaieries...some peopel seem to ignore that fact and think sound from onboard over HDMI = same as sound from a soundcard via digital transission...it's not 😉

If you disable processing, the soundcard should not add anything and send the signal unaltered to an external DAC. In that case, onboard would equal soundcard because all the processing is done by the external DAC. It's why a blu-ray on ps3 bitstreaming audio to a receiver would sound exactly the same as blu-ray on any other device bitstreaming to the same receiver.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Sometimes ADDing to the sound equals ruining the sound. Depends on the source and the listening device. There's some audio sources like DTS-HD MA that I don't want messed with. I want to hear what's encoded on the disk and that alone. Especially with a decent theater setup.

That's going off topic but I will repeat. Speakers make a lot of difference. Sometimes crap speakers can be faked to sound good by things that mess with the audio before output.

 

[Joseph F]

...it's digital. What would it matter how beefy the electronics are?

This.

 

[Lonbjerg]

This.

Suuuure....

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=174494

 

[bononos]

Suuuure....

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=174494

Is there a definitive post in that thread which actually has some benchmark numbers/rmaa or a/b testing? Theres nothing in there for the next 10 pages.

I've came across some rmaa tests done which showed x-fi/audigys performing similarly or worse. A more recent hardocp review shows the x-fi recon fatal1ty having worse noise and IMD and while it had better numbers on the other tests, the onboard was pretty good or at least decent which is why for users with gaming/consumer speakers, an onboard solution is comparable with discrete cards in terms of sq.

Edit: Another rmaa test from 2008 which shows an onboard realtek ALC889a performing as well as a X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro-
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-373-2.htm

rmaa test with Audigy1 vs ALC888 vs ADI1885 (typical of 2002 onboard).
http://wwenze.blogspot.com/2012/05/beyond-hype-sound-blaster-audigy-vs.html

A similar thread with several mods weighing in:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2218951&page=2

 

[moriz]

Can you tell me more about how much better amd's hdmi is better than nvidias? Specs or details?

I've had experiences with both brands. Quality wise, they are identical, as expected. However, nvidia's solution is more unstable: the cards sometimes lose audio after waking from sleep. There's also the fact that the audio isn't always in sync when playing desktop sounds, caused by the fact that the audio stream isn't always active. Thankfully, audio status in sync with movies and games, so it's a nonissue.

 

[KingFatty]

Suuuure....

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=174494

So the first post in that link, setting out the premise, is from 2006. I remember back then, using the onboard sound would drop my frames per second as reported, because I was really pushing the CPU or otherwise CPU limited.

But over half a decade later, present day computers, do they still suffer from using the CPU to process sound? I'd guess that you have CPU cycles to spare for use in sound processing, maybe even you have extra cores sitting around doing nothing that could do sound processing (not sure about Starcraft specifics, but I'd guess they use one core for user interface stuff and maybe sound, while the other core does game engine etc., and remaining cores beyond 2 just do nothing).

Anyway, is it still a valid argument that a sound card will let you get higher frames per second because it takes a burden off the CPU?

And more interestingly, will using the videocard's sound card take the burden off your CPU, or does the video card sound via HDMI burden the CPU just as much? You don't really see anyone reviewing this anymore, it's just off the radar as far as trying to increase game performance.

Also, I'm not sure I'm convinced that there really is a burden to pipe the digital sound directly from the game through the video card sound to a digital HDMI sound processing device - don't most games work that way, where they just output a digital sound and, so long as you aren't adding reverb/echo/EAX effects, the sound card just funnels that data through the HDMI port on the video card without touching/processing it?

 

[lavaheadache]

No, he can't....its just called trolling.

I just got a good laugh out of that

 

[VirtualLarry]

I've had experiences with both brands. Quality wise, they are identical, as expected. However, nvidia's solution is more unstable: the cards sometimes lose audio after waking from sleep. There's also the fact that the audio isn't always in sync when playing desktop sounds, caused by the fact that the audio stream isn't always active. Thankfully, audio status in sync with movies and games, so it's a nonissue.

It is also documented that NV HDMI audio output, or their HDMI output in general, does NOT have enough bandwidth to both send audio, and a 1920x1200 signal over their HDMI port.

I saw this documented in the 29x.x driver readme PDF file.

I found that to be interesting news, since I do have a 1920x1200 display, with speakers, and I had been using a GTX460 1GB card, and having trouble with the HDMI output dropping out for a few seconds every once in a while randomly.

 

[thelastjuju]

I dunno, I have run HDMI to a receiver and I have an xfi connected to a klipsch pro media 5.1 set at my desk. I didn't notice any difference except the paradigm speakers were superior. It wasn't an apples to apples comparison either. My friend just built a new PC and no sound card, we are using the relatec alc898 and it sounds the same as my xfi.

I don't think the difference is worth mentioning for games. When you talk music quality like a symphony CD then maybe there is a fidelity difference. I wouldn't know.

Were you outputting DIGITAL or ANALOG? Because if you outputted DIGITAL, you wouldn't notice the sound card doing anything, because you are simply bypassing it.

----

In case this is still a mystery to anybody:

OUTPUTTING DIGITAL = BYPASSING THE SIGNAL. By outputting digital, be it optical out from a mobo, or hdmi out from a video card, you are simply passing the audio in digital form along to the NEXT piece of equipment in line, so that IT can do the digital sound processing and the ultimate digital to analog conversion.

It's that simple really.. The video card is not DOING anything with the sound, other than taking its digital signal and passing it along to say, your receiver to take care of it from there. It does not have a "built in" soundcard that is processing that sound in any way.

Only if you output ANALOG from a sound card, would the computer be responsible for the digital to analog conversion and the digital sound processing.. and of course the higher end the sound card, the higher quality the DAC and DSP will be.

SO.. If your sound card's DAC is of higher quality than your receiver's, you want to output ANALOG for best sound quality. If your receiver has the higher quality DAC, you want to output DIGITAL. Everyone should try both and go with whatever produces better sound quality.

 

[tweakboy]

For gamers nvidia or amd. For DAW Sonar then yes it matters you need a dedicated sound card.

The quality is 16bit 44hz ,,,,,,,,,, you wont get any 3d audio like EAX ,, the game has to incorporate it....... I will always recommend dedicated card to people,

 

[thelastjuju]

For gamers nvidia or amd. For DAW Sonar then yes it matters you need a dedicated sound card.

The quality is 16bit 44hz ,,,,,,,,,, you wont get any 3d audio like EAX ,, the game has to incorporate it....... I will always recommend dedicated card to people,

Well that's a GOOD thing!

I have a dedicated sound card and the last thing I'd ever want anything to do with, is artificial nonsense like like "EAX" emulation.

I prefer pure, unaltered sound quality being processed by high quality hardware alone. No amount of simulated software sound effects can ever make up for that.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Well that's a GOOD thing!

I have a dedicated sound card and the last thing I'd ever want anything to do with, is artificial nonsense like like "EAX" emulation.

I prefer pure, unaltered sound quality being processed by high quality hardware alone. No amount of simulated software sound effects can ever make up for that.

You must really hate shadowmaps then..since it's a simulation...

 

[Lonbjerg]

So the first post in that link, setting out the premise, is from 2006. I remember back then, using the onboard sound would drop my frames per second as reported, because I was really pushing the CPU or otherwise CPU limited.

But over half a decade later, present day computers, do they still suffer from using the CPU to process sound? I'd guess that you have CPU cycles to spare for use in sound processing, maybe even you have extra cores sitting around doing nothing that could do sound processing (not sure about Starcraft specifics, but I'd guess they use one core for user interface stuff and maybe sound, while the other core does game engine etc., and remaining cores beyond 2 just do nothing).

Anyway, is it still a valid argument that a sound card will let you get higher frames per second because it takes a burden off the CPU?

And more interestingly, will using the videocard's sound card take the burden off your CPU, or does the video card sound via HDMI burden the CPU just as much? You don't really see anyone reviewing this anymore, it's just off the radar as far as trying to increase game performance.

Also, I'm not sure I'm convinced that there really is a burden to pipe the digital sound directly from the game through the video card sound to a digital HDMI sound processing device - don't most games work that way, where they just output a digital sound and, so long as you aren't adding reverb/echo/EAX effects, the sound card just funnels that data through the HDMI port on the video card without touching/processing it?

Look at the last page of that thread...from 2012 :sneaky:

 

[Joseph F]

You must really hate shadowmaps then..since it's a simulation...

Nice argument, there. Because sight and sound are the same thing, after all, right? 🙄

 

[reallyscrued]

You must really hate shadowmaps then..since it's a simulation...

First dedicated gfx vs onboard as your analogy and then this...

Give it a rest dude.

 

[Soundmanred]

I used to use a high end soundcard and one day I decided to try HDMI to my Integra 7.1 reciever, and it may not have sounded better but it sure didn't sound worse. I ditched the soundcard shortly after and never looked back.
Also I thank God EAX and the like are dead.

 

[Lonbjerg]

First dedicated gfx vs onboard as your analogy and then this...

Give it a rest dude.

sahdowmaps are only a simulation..nothing like the real thing...you opend that door...don't whine about it.

Hint: Everything in games is a simulation...but some simuuations are more true to real life than others. :sneaky:

 

[nenforcer]

No sound card (onboard CODEC or discrete sound card) does multichannel encoding (taking a stereo 2 channel source or 5.1/7.1 encoded source) unless it supports Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect. Creative didn't add this ability until the X-Fi Titanium series (over TOSLINK and COAX) which is why I have avoided them for over a decade now.

If you connect your HDMI audio output of your video card directly to your TV for instance it is more than likely just sending standard PCM / LPCM two channel stereo audio.

However, if you have a prerendered audio source i.e. a DVD or Bluray, then you can bitstream (passthrough) the complete digital signal over HDMI to a receiver which will then do the decoding and distribute it to your speakers.

I think some people are claiming that nVidia doesn't properly implement the HDMI 1.3 or 1.4 spec and allot the full bandwidth necessary to transfer both high bitrate audio and 1080P FullHD video at the same time.

 

[reallyscrued]

sahdowmaps are only a simulation..nothing like the real thing...you opend that door...don't whine about it.

Hint: Everything in games is a simulation...but some simuuations are more true to real life than others. :sneaky:

What? No I didn't open any door...

You're just wrong in this respect and won't admit it.

 

[cmdrdredd]

No sound card (onboard CODEC or discrete sound card) does multichannel encoding (taking a stereo 2 channel source or 5.1/7.1 encoded source) unless it supports Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect. Creative didn't add this ability until the X-Fi Titanium series (over TOSLINK and COAX) which is why I have avoided them for over a decade now.

If you connect your HDMI audio output of your video card directly to your TV for instance it is more than likely just sending standard PCM / LPCM two channel stereo audio.

However, if you have a prerendered audio source i.e. a DVD or Bluray, then you can bitstream (passthrough) the complete digital signal over HDMI to a receiver which will then do the decoding and distribute it to your speakers.

I think some people are claiming that nVidia doesn't properly implement the HDMI 1.3 or 1.4 spec and allot the full bandwidth necessary to transfer both high bitrate audio and 1080P FullHD video at the same time.

Then I want to know what happens when you are playing a game in 5.1 on your receiver and running 1080p to your TV from your Video card. I mean, are you missing anything over using analog from a standard soundcard?

How about if you run Optical from your soundcard to your receiver. You get the same thing as analog just a different output method? I'm not talking about the quality of the DACs etc. I'm talking about the sound effects you hear, is there anything missing?

 

[nenforcer]

Then I want to know what happens when you are playing a game in 5.1 on your receiver and running 1080p to your TV from your Video card. I mean, are you missing anything over using analog from a standard soundcard?

More than likely the audio coming from the PC / game is stereo encoded, even though its connected via a digital connection (HDMI / TOSLINK / COAX) so when it gets to your 5.1 receiver the receiver either just plays the stereo through two speakers (left/right front channel) or it performs Dolby Pro Logic / DTS Neo:6 which "intelligently" distributes stereo audio across a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker setup.

You have to remember almost all music audio since cassete tapes (CD, miniDisc, IPOD) is still just 2-channel stereo encoded. SACD (Superior Audio CD) is the only multichannel encoded consumer audio CD and these cost like $30 which almost no one buys or even owns a SACD compatible player / receiver.

How about if you run Optical from your soundcard to your receiver. You get the same thing as analog just a different output method? I'm not talking about the quality of the DACs etc. I'm talking about the sound effects you hear, is there anything missing?

You get arguably a better / purer sound when using any digital (optical / coax) connection because you avoid the ADC / DAC analog to digital / digital to analog conversions.

You are correct, whether you use TOSLINK optical, COAX digital or HDMI digital it is more than likely just sending stereo LPCM audio across, unless it is a DVD, HD-DVD or Bluray.

You can also download .WMV movies which have 5.1 encoded audio as well as Quicktime .MP4 videos and now .MKV container files for things like H.264 video. (but these are obviously very large files)

Earlier this decade there were only a handful of PC games which even attemped to support multichannel audio (Half Life 2, iD Tech Games)but now Unreal Engine and DICE / Frostbite engines support multichannel encoded audio since multicore CPU's are powerful enough to do such things in realtime.

This is why I always hated Creative and EAX, at least until they came out with the Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium.

They purchased the speaker company Cambridge Soundworks and wanted to sell you not only the sound card but their propreitary connection to these analog speakers to get multichannel EAX encoded audio for PC games. Their sound cards did not support Dolby Digital or DTS since they probably didn't want to pay royalties.

The original XBOX and Playstaton 2 (as well as XBOX 360 and PS3) have supported Dolby Digital / DTS over optical TOSLINK for the past decade now. The SoundStorm audio chip in the PC listed in my sig was a very early attempt (2002) at what is now called Dolby Digital Live.