Receiver and Soundcard questions

[slpaulson]

I recently bought a Harman Kardon AVR 340 receiver, and I have a couple of questions about connecting it to my computer.

I currently own a Soundblaster X-Fi sound card, but I am sort of looking for an excuse to sell it because of driver related problems with Windows Vista (several users, including myself, have problems with Vista waking up from sleep due to Creative's drivers.)

I was wondering if there is a problem with getting three mini plug to RCA adapters, and using that to connect to my receiver. Can receivers typically redirect bass to the subwoofer from an analog source, or is that something my sound card would need to do? Currently I don't see any options for that in my X-Fi's drivers.

If I do end up buying a new sound card, does anybody have any recommendations for a good sound card with DTS encoding? I don't really care about the analog quality of the sound card, since I would be using the digital connection.

 

[sdifox]

What would be the point of DTS Live as opposed to DD Live?

 

[slpaulson]

I was under the impression that DTS was a higher quality format.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: sdifox
What would be the point of DTS Live as opposed to DD Live?

DTS has a higher bitrate = less compression

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: slpaulson
I recently bought a Harman Kardon AVR 340 receiver, and I have a couple of questions about connecting it to my computer.

I currently own a Soundblaster X-Fi sound card, but I am sort of looking for an excuse to sell it because of driver related problems with Windows Vista (several users, including myself, have problems with Vista waking up from sleep due to Creative's drivers.)

I was wondering if there is a problem with getting three mini plug to RCA adapters, and using that to connect to my receiver. Can receivers typically redirect bass to the subwoofer from an analog source, or is that something my sound card would need to do? Currently I don't see any options for that in my X-Fi's drivers.

If I do end up buying a new sound card, does anybody have any recommendations for a good sound card with DTS encoding? I don't really care about the analog quality of the sound card, since I would be using the digital connection.

Look into the HT omega claro or the Bluegears B-enspirer. I would say the Claro is the higher quality choice but the B-enpirer may be good on a budget.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: slpaulson
I was under the impression that DTS was a higher quality format.

good impression, not good information

It is not going to make any difference for your case since you are talking about encoding game sound, which is crappy to start with.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: sdifox
What would be the point of DTS Live as opposed to DD Live?

DTS has a higher bitrate = less compression

Encoding is rated by efficiency, higher bitrate actually means lower efficiency. Both codec have problems, but overall they sound about the same (other than the obvious bass spike on DTS) so realistically speaking, DTS is inferior because it requires more bandwidth.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: sdifox
What would be the point of DTS Live as opposed to DD Live?

DTS has a higher bitrate = less compression

Encoding is rated by efficiency, higher bitrate actually means lower efficiency. Both codec have problems, but overall they sound about the same (other than the obvious bass spike on DTS) so realistically speaking, DTS is inferior because it requires more bandwidth.

[/quote]

If you only define efficiency as the smallest filesize when compared to the original recording then I am afraid your definition differs from my own. If that is the case then what is an acceptable loss to you? Is a 128kbps mp3 more "efficient" than a 320kbps one? If I box could go through a shipping facility in 2 minutes but ended up damaged would that be a more efficient process than taking 5 minutes to transfer the box perfectly?

Efficiency in encoding is reducing the filesize as much as possible with as little loss as possible. For instance, the OGG container for compressing music is often regarded as more efficient than Mp3 because the same size file sounds better when compressed into OGG format.

What you referenced is the compression ratio. A comparison of the original filesize to the final filesize. In that respects, you can say DTS has a lower compression ratio and that would be true. But more efficient? Not necessarily.

Also, where do you get this claim of a "bass spike" on DTS recordings as well? DTS is often recorded at a higher overall level thereby being perceived as "louder" in comparison. However, there is not "bass spike" on DTS tracks which over exaggerate low freq.

I don't deny that they often sound similar. But in some cases there is a definite better quality to DTS tracks.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: sdifox
What would be the point of DTS Live as opposed to DD Live?

DTS has a higher bitrate = less compression

Encoding is rated by efficiency, higher bitrate actually means lower efficiency. Both codec have problems, but overall they sound about the same (other than the obvious bass spike on DTS) so realistically speaking, DTS is inferior because it requires more bandwidth.

If you only define efficiency as the smallest filesize when compared to the original recording then I am afraid your definition differs from my own. If that is the case then what is an acceptable loss to you? Is a 128kbps mp3 more "efficient" than a 320kbps one? If I box could go through a shipping facility in 2 minutes but ended up damaged would that be a more efficient process than taking 5 minutes to transfer the box perfectly?

Efficiency in encoding is reducing the filesize as much as possible with as little loss as possible. For instance, the OGG container for compressing music is often regarded as more efficient than Mp3 because the same size file sounds better when compressed into OGG format.

What you referenced is the compression ratio. A comparison of the original filesize to the final filesize. In that respects, you can say DTS has a lower compression ratio and that would be true. But more efficient? Not necessarily.

Also, where do you get this claim of a "bass spike" on DTS recordings as well? DTS is often recorded at a higher overall level thereby being perceived as "louder" in comparison. However, there is not "bass spike" on DTS tracks which over exaggerate low freq.

I don't deny that they often sound similar. But in some cases there is a definite better quality to DTS tracks.[/quote]

There has been plenty of spectrum plots that show while both DTS and DD are not perfect, their interpretation of the original waveform is pretty close. Each falls flat at different sections of the spectrum so they are different, but not necessarily better than one another.
The perceived better quality is often times the skill of the sound master, whom knows intimately the limitations of the encoder and work around it.

Unfortunately my old example links have mostly gone kaput and I don't know if DTS has addressed this issue since then.


try this one, I think the specific spectrum plots article link is broken...

http://www.highfidelityreview....sp?reviewnumber=523387

I'll see if I can get Stuart to fix it.

ah ha, link fixed. Here is the comparison

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/tech/germerica.asp

 

[slpaulson]

I decided to get a new sound card, but use the analog outputs to avoid compression. I doubt I'd notice the difference, but I'm funny that way.

I went with an Auzentech X-Meridian and I'm going to try the op amp upgrade.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: slpaulson
I decided to get a new sound card, but use the analog outputs to avoid compression. I doubt I'd notice the difference, but I'm funny that way.

I went with an Auzentech X-Meridian and I'm going to try the op amp upgrade.

If you're still going to be encoding into DTS/DD then you're going to be getting the compression regardless of how you hook it up to the reciever, digital would just make it simpler (and the processing would depend on the reciever's capability). If you're not going to be doing analog, then you may or may not get good game audio (depending on how the game does audio, but remember that you're not going to be getting above EAX 2 with that card). So, might've been better keeping the X-Fi. As for driver issues, I don't know that any company has what you would call good Vista ones. I doubt you'd notice the differences really, unless the op amps you change to are warmer or maybe less warm). Hmm, actually, will it allow you to encode into DD/DTS through analog? Unless the card is going to encode it and then decode it on the fly there's not going to be anything decoding the signal (the reciever will just be acting as an amp for the speakers).

As for DD/DTS, its true that oftentimes there won't be a big difference between the two, but DTS actually seems to be the preferred format in theaters these days, so its not uncommon for the DTS track to be better mixed. I know several movies that have much better DTS tracks than DD ones, and likewise a few where the Dolby track is better although it seemsm to be the DTS ones more often. Now when getting into the HD versions, where both should effectively be lossless (I believe that's the main point of the HD ones), the difference is in the mixing mastering of the original track and will depend on which one they put effort into. In some ways, I think DTS is preferred by enthusiasts because of some of the things Dolby has done through the years that haven't necessarily been in the interest of improving audio (I can't recall them, its been a while since I remember reading about it).

 

[slpaulson]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: slpaulson
I decided to get a new sound card, but use the analog outputs to avoid compression. I doubt I'd notice the difference, but I'm funny that way.

I went with an Auzentech X-Meridian and I'm going to try the op amp upgrade.

If you're still going to be encoding into DTS/DD then you're going to be getting the compression regardless of how you hook it up to the reciever, digital would just make it simpler (and the processing would depend on the reciever's capability). If you're not going to be doing analog, then you may or may not get good game audio (depending on how the game does audio, but remember that you're not going to be getting above EAX 2 with that card). So, might've been better keeping the X-Fi. As for driver issues, I don't know that any company has what you would call good Vista ones. I doubt you'd notice the differences really, unless the op amps you change to are warmer or maybe less warm). Hmm, actually, will it allow you to encode into DD/DTS through analog? Unless the card is going to encode it and then decode it on the fly there's not going to be anything decoding the signal (the reciever will just be acting as an amp for the speakers).

As for DD/DTS, its true that oftentimes there won't be a big difference between the two, but DTS actually seems to be the preferred format in theaters these days, so its not uncommon for the DTS track to be better mixed. I know several movies that have much better DTS tracks than DD ones, and likewise a few where the Dolby track is better although it seemsm to be the DTS ones more often. Now when getting into the HD versions, where both should effectively be lossless (I believe that's the main point of the HD ones), the difference is in the mixing mastering of the original track and will depend on which one they put effort into. In some ways, I think DTS is preferred by enthusiasts because of some of the things Dolby has done through the years that haven't necessarily been in the interest of improving audio (I can't recall them, its been a while since I remember reading about it).

I don't do much gaming at all, so I don't really care about losing EAX.

I won't be encoding the sound into DTS or DD if I use the analog outputs.

The people on AVS all seem to agree that this is a much better card sound quality wise than the X-Fi, and I haven't heard of any Vista driver issues with this card.