External DAC/AMP still worth it vs. modern onboard sound?

[Franzi]

Hi

I've been wondering whether or not I should buy an external DAC and Headphone AMP for my AKG702's. I have an ASUS Z87-WS that comes with the Realtek ALC1150 which is considered to be a very good onboard solution.

I would buy the Fostex HP-A3 and use the S/PDIF connection from the Mainboard. Is it still worth it for a better audio experience or is onboard sound enough these days? I wouldn't consider myself an audiophile but I solely use my PC to listen to music.

Any suggestions are welcome

 

[dkm777]

With headphones like that I'd definitely get an external DAC/amp. I don't believe there's an onboard solution that will bring out the full colors of your headphones. In your case it's like having a race car and then putting cheap tires on it. BTW, I envy you, those are exact same cans that I dream about, but I have to make do with my HD555 pair .

 

[dma0991]

Onboard solutions from Realtek only gives the bare essentials. I wasn't even mildly impressed by the terrible sound (driving AT AD700 & M50s) that I got from my ALC898, so much so that I used a cheap DAC in the mean time, before moving on to higher end DAC and amplifiers.

AKG K702 are very hard to drive and I doubt an onboard solution will be sufficient to bring out the best of it. I highly recommend getting a DAC, especially if you'd already spent that much on a good headphone.

 

[Franzi]

Thanks for the input, its much appreciated.

I ordered the Fostex DAC today and can't wait to hear the difference. I'm probably going to use the optical connection instead of USB:

Best regards

 

[dma0991]

You must eliminate any bottlenecks that can occur. Aside from a better DAC, getting your music from a better source (320 kbps or FLAC) should be your next step. I wouldn't go too far (silver cable, even higher end stuff) after that step because it gets really expensive and its meant for those with golden ears or those foolish enough to chase that 1% difference.

 

[Franzi]

You must eliminate any bottlenecks that can occur. Aside from a better DAC, getting your music from a better source (320 kbps or FLAC) should be your next step. I wouldn't go too far (silver cable, even higher end stuff) after that step because it gets really expensive and its meant for those with golden ears or those foolish enough to chase that 1% difference.

Yeah since I got the AKG K702's I noticed how bad everything below 320kbps sounds, even with the onboard Realtek 1150. I want to keep the cost at a reasonable level and €500 (like $600 maybe) for the DAC and Headphones together seems ok (got the AKG's for €249 in Germany).

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Having a nice, quiet DAC makes a world of difference in music listening, and almost any external DAC is a marked improvement over the motherboard integrated stuff. Personally if I wanted to just touch into the market, I'd just get a Schiit Modi and Magni stack and call it a day. A $200 USD investment gives you about the best bang / buck as long as you don't need any non-USB inputs and are not trying to drive planar magnetics.

 

[yhelothar]

I have an external USB DAC, the iBasso D2+ Boa. I'm going to go against the grain here and say it's worthless unless your motherboard doesn't put out much power and/or your headphones are high impedance. Onboard DAC has gone a long way. It's nowhere near the quality back in the day where it sounded muffled. They all have pretty decent SNR ratings(100dB+) that's better than soundblasters back in the day.

I bought my external DAC because I was getting loads of interference from my onboard. Surprisingly, the interference went through the USB and I still got the same interference from my external DAC. I asked on head-fi about it and others who had the same issue had to buy a $200 USB isolator to avoid the noise.

It sounds like you'd be ok going optical though.

 

[biostud]

Here as good read about it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html

 

[aaksheytalwar]

No sound card, not even stx holds a candle to a decent setup. Even a $300 amp dac combo. Beats the stx.

 

[yhelothar]

Here as good read about it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html

Conclusion:
A $2 Codec Sounds (to us) like a $2000 Device

Using world-class headphones, a $2 Realtek integrated audio codec could not be reliably distinguished from the $2000 Benchmark DAC2 HGC in a four-device round-up. Again, all four devices sounded great.

 

[It's Not Lupus]

I doubt most could tell the difference between onboard and external setups in a proper blind test. Even if there was difference, there's still the choice of which setup sounds better (it's not determined by cost).

Sames goes for 320kbps vs ~128kbps VBR mp3s in blind testing. The LAME mp3 encoder is very well tuned.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

The article is misleading. I'm definitely not one to believe in the multi-thousand dollar special sauce, but the article starts from an absurd premise. You're not buying a $2 codec, just like you're not buying the $10 DAC chip in a DAC. Would anyone like to explain how you make a $2 codec receive and output sound? You don't.

Does that $2 codec provide Power? Signaling? Input/Output?

You're not buying a $2 codec, you're buying a $240 motherboard with a $2 codec built in. A $240 motherboard that just happens to have a well-implemented codec, with good signal tracing, solid power delivery (at least under the conditions tested), and flexible outputs.

This is not every motherboard. The vast majority of non-flagship motherboards have very poor power delivery and tracing that causes all sorts of nasty noise and performance issues. It also is often a mixed bag that doesn't tell full specifications. For instance, what is the output impedance? My on-the-go pair of headphones and quick grabs are custom IEMs (in ear monitors). Headphones like this often have impedances of 12 ohms or less (mine specifically are nine). This means that if output impedance isn't darn near 0 Ohms it causes all sorts of hell including noise. Also what happens if I want to connect my 600 Ohm Beyers? Power output drops nearly off of a cliff. What about my planar magnetics? No chance in hell.

I'm as thankful as the next guy that investing thousands of dollars in audio is unnecessary to have good results. But making these false claims and then having the audacity to call it good science is crap. It's good, and correct objective testing, but claiming that a $2 component gives equal performance as a more expensive system is an absurdly biased comment to make and just bad journalism.

But there are these types of people on both sides of these arguments. There are those like Patrick82 that believe buying a 50 grand power cable wrapped in a garden hose is going to improve your sound, just like there are people out there who blanket believe "everything is the same" and firmly believe their $20 Pyle 4 channel headphone amplifier is just as capable as a thoughtfully designed solid-state amp that is properly DC-Coupled and an output impedance that is capable of dealing with IEMs (anything greater than an Ohm of output impedance in a solid state amp is pretty much an example of lazy engineering at work).

 

[Franzi]

So I got the Fostex HP-A3 here now since Saturday and to be honest I can barely hear a difference. I tried various kinds of music (all ripped from CD to FLAC with FFmpeg) and some movies, the Realtek 1150 is keeping up very strong vs. the external DAC/AMP (using optical s/pdif), ASUS did a good job with the Z87-WS board. The AKG K702 have 62 Ohm impendance btw so its not really a problem for good onboard solutions to drive them.

Maybe I don't have the ears to tell these last 2% of difference, i'm also unable to notice the difference between FLAC and 320kbps mp3 in most cases. I will test more the next days but I already decided to keep the DAC anyway, its a very nice device.

Best regards

 

[loki993]

I dont know a TON about the 702s but I do know a bit. The impedance may be low but for whatever reason they have a reputation for being hard to drive they need a lot of power so you really cant judge on impedance alone sometimes.

 

[Rubycon]

Sames goes for 320kbps vs ~128kbps VBR mp3s in blind testing. The LAME mp3 encoder is very well tuned.

It's not even close. 320kpbs lame MP3 is quite inferior to the original 16bit 44.1kHz source. Instantly discernible. Now if your source is some mass produced modern POP compressed (low crest factor) CRAP, then sure it's going to be harder to tell in a blind test. Garbage in, garbage out! D:

But I've taken some good "off the board" live recordings that were done at 24/192 and resampled to 16/44.1 and compressed with LAME at 320kbps (tried fixed and VBR) and it was easy to pick out the one that was lacking. Granted, we're musicians and somewhat biased but to to say one cannot tell them apart black and white is kind of ridiculous.

Incidentally, trying to pick the original 24/192 vs. 16/44.1 was much harder if not impossible for most well tuned ears. And most missed the subtle differences until pointed out. With PCM vs. MP3 it was easy.

 

[bononos]

It's not even close. 320kpbs lame MP3 is quite inferior to the original 16bit 44.1kHz source. Instantly discernible. Now if your source is some mass produced modern POP compressed (low crest factor) CRAP, then sure it's going to be harder to tell in a blind test. Garbage in, garbage out! D:
.......

Is there non-overly compressed music/sounds you mentioned available on the net which I can use for testing mp3/mp4 encoders? Or do you have a fragment available which is downloadable?

I don't understand why would drc affect quality since I thought it was about managing the 'loudness'.

 

[biostud]

It's not even close. 320kpbs lame MP3 is quite inferior to the original 16bit 44.1kHz source. Instantly discernible. Now if your source is some mass produced modern POP compressed (low crest factor) CRAP, then sure it's going to be harder to tell in a blind test. Garbage in, garbage out! D:

But I've taken some good "off the board" live recordings that were done at 24/192 and resampled to 16/44.1 and compressed with LAME at 320kbps (tried fixed and VBR) and it was easy to pick out the one that was lacking. Granted, we're musicians and somewhat biased but to to say one cannot tell them apart black and white is kind of ridiculous.

Incidentally, trying to pick the original 24/192 vs. 16/44.1 was much harder if not impossible for most well tuned ears. And most missed the subtle differences until pointed out. With PCM vs. MP3 it was easy.

Personally I can't hear the difference between 320 kbps mp3 and CD/FLAC on my setup. Even the difference between 256 and 320 is not easily found, but if I really try, the 320 sounds a bit more open and lively than 256.

But going from my onboard sound to an external DAC improved music quality massively.

 

[Billb2]

Is there non-overly compressed music/sounds you mentioned available on the net which I can use for testing mp3/mp4 encoders? Or do you have a fragment available which is downloadable?

I don't understand why would drc affect quality since I thought it was about managing the 'loudness'.

http://www.hdtracks.com/audiophile-picks, there are others, some with free demos.

You may also want to look into a better player.
Try JPlay (not JRiver, that's completely different)
There's a free demo available.

How I do it.........http://www.overclock.net/t/1470868/rave-playing-music/0_50

 

[TerryMathews]

Probably no one cares but:

My favorite setup, which I'm using now and isnt terribly expensive, is a Firestone FUBAR IV+ connected via SPDIF to my motherboard audio and an Indeed TA2021 driving a pair of Micca MB42Xs via the line out from motherboard audio.

Ive got a program (name escapes me ATM) that sits in the taskbar and let's me switch audio outputs via a click.

You dont have to spend a ton of money to get good audio out of your PC, and the audio gear will last you years.

 

[It's Not Lupus]

It's not even close. 320kpbs lame MP3 is quite inferior to the original 16bit 44.1kHz source. Instantly discernible. Now if your source is some mass produced modern POP compressed (low crest factor) CRAP, then sure it's going to be harder to tell in a blind test. Garbage in, garbage out! D:

But I've taken some good "off the board" live recordings that were done at 24/192 and resampled to 16/44.1 and compressed with LAME at 320kbps (tried fixed and VBR) and it was easy to pick out the one that was lacking. Granted, we're musicians and somewhat biased but to to say one cannot tell them apart black and white is kind of ridiculous.

Incidentally, trying to pick the original 24/192 vs. 16/44.1 was much harder if not impossible for most well tuned ears. And most missed the subtle differences until pointed out. With PCM vs. MP3 it was easy.

saying you can tell the difference is one thing; proving it is another.

 

[bononos]

http://www.hdtracks.com/audiophile-picks, there are others, some with free demos.

You may also want to look into a better player.
Try JPlay (not JRiver, that's completely different)
There's a free demo available.

How I do it.........http://www.overclock.net/t/1470868/rave-playing-music/0_50

Are those tracks mastered decades ago without excessive drc?
Jplay attracted alot of controversy over its claims, I don't think its mostly accepted as a new standard for music players judging by what I see on the forums.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

If you have a nice pair of cans, an external amp is definitely warranted.
Tried a pair of MrSpeakers Mad Dogs driven from a modded X-Fi and it sounded flat.
Hooked it up to an amp and it was _much_ better.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Well I have beyerdynamics dt-990 pro's and I can hear the difference when the source is below 320kbps. Fortunately my asus xonar d2x can drive it.

 

[videogames101]

It's not even close. 320kpbs lame MP3 is quite inferior to the original 16bit 44.1kHz source. Instantly discernible. Now if your source is some mass produced modern POP compressed (low crest factor) CRAP, then sure it's going to be harder to tell in a blind test. Garbage in, garbage out! D:

But I've taken some good "off the board" live recordings that were done at 24/192 and resampled to 16/44.1 and compressed with LAME at 320kbps (tried fixed and VBR) and it was easy to pick out the one that was lacking. Granted, we're musicians and somewhat biased but to to say one cannot tell them apart black and white is kind of ridiculous.

Incidentally, trying to pick the original 24/192 vs. 16/44.1 was much harder if not impossible for most well tuned ears. And most missed the subtle differences until pointed out. With PCM vs. MP3 it was easy.

When the human ear only goes up to 20k on a good day, it's no wonder 192k sounds no different. Any difference you might hear is likely not a more truthful reproduction, but rather different noise resulting from a slightly different signal path.

If the content has a huge dynamic range, 24-bit might matter, but even the best systems can't possibly take advantage of more than 21-bits or so because noise.