receiver vs. sound card question.

[Anarchist420]

HK AVR 1600 and infinity primus P162 (x2) vs. [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Asus[/COLOR][/COLOR] D2X and Creative T2900s
How much better does the former sound than the latter? Is it a wise upgrade?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

No comparison whatsoever. A real receiver and speakers will blow away anything that Creative's ever made. Now, you may miss the boomy "bass" from the "subwoofer" in the Creative set. But those Infinitys should be good down to ~50Hz, which is probably deeper than the actual response of the Creative "sub". You can add a real sub later.

There is little audible difference between soundcards (outside of processing capability -- some are able to do 7.1, some 5.1, etc.). Digital sound is digital sound. Just make sure you have an optical connection from your PC to your receiver -- keep it digital until it's *outside* the noisebox that is a PC.

 

[darkswordsman17]

The Infinity speakers should sound quite a bit better.

 

[electroju]

A sound card does not have the decoding capabilities as a surround sound processor or AV receiver. Also cheap surround sound processors or AV receivers have a lot better DAC than sound cards. The ASUS Xonar D1 or ASUS Xonar DX are all you need for a sound card to output to analog. Yes, you do not need a fancy sound card when only dealing with digital audio. For analog output, a good DAC is needed for digital audio. Buying a high end sound card like the ASUS Xonar and then comparing to an AV receiver or surround sound processor is a side-ways type of purchase. Though if you bought an X-fi sound sound card, it is actually a downgrade.

There is a big difference between one sound card and to another, but only if you have good speakers and good hearing. Creative Labs does not know sound quality. They know sound specifications like signal to noise ratio, THD, and crazy environmental names, but these are just a small portion to sound quality.

There are better speaker brands than Infinity. PSB and Klipsch are others that are good. Computer speakers just sucks, but I put an exception to Klipsch for computer speakers. A real subwoofer are DIY builds like from Rythmik Audio.

 

[Rifter]

are you even serious? of course the receiver and real speakers will sound better than creative crap.

 

[Anarchist420]

Alright, thanks guys. I'm going to get the receiver and speakers when I can afford it. What would be a good price to sell the D2X for? Just so I know how much I need to make for the receiver and speakers.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Well, there's no reason you have to spend $300+ on that particular receiver. If you just need stereo (2 speakers) then you can pick up a used stereo receiver on Craigslist or at a pawnshop for <$100, easily. Probably <$50. Of course, you probably want optical digital input, so that's a limitation (most stereo receivers don't have it) but even so, you ought to be able to get something <$100 that will work. There's also cheap (but high quality) receivers all over the Web:

http://stores.ebay.com/Harman-Audio
http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...iver/Home-Audio/Home-Theater-Receivers/1.html

 

[mv2devnull]

Some audiophiles seem to consider the internal DAC of HK AVR not as good as some other DAC. And some claim the sound card DAC's to be decent. I could not tell.

Anyway, some questions:
* The source of sound is "something". I do assume that OP has had the sound passed from the source to the Xonar. How does the sound get passed from the source to the HK AVR?

* P162 are apparently superior to T2900. Is there any way to hook P162's to the Xonar? Amplifier?

 

[Modelworks]

There is a big difference between one sound card and to another, but only if you have good speakers and good hearing.

If you use the digital out then it doesn't matter if it is a $5 sound card or a $5K sound card. All that matters is the chip is passing the digital bit perfect, which most onboard chipsets do now.

 

[Modelworks]

Some audiophiles seem to consider the internal DAC of HK AVR not as good as some other DAC. And some claim the sound card DAC's to be decent. I could not tell.

People that claim to hear the difference either have superhuman hearing , have something on the receiver altering the sound besides the DAC or it is the placebo effect.

There is no way a person can tell the difference in a DAC that is rated 109db dynamic range and one rated 112db when even the test equipment has to be well calibrated to see it.

The other rating they use is SNR and that is 95% of the time not the correct value on datasheets because the IEEE did not phrase it correctly which allows a loophole that doesn't include harmonics noise.

Blind studies often show that people are oblivious to the difference in things like DAC and wiring.

 

[alkemyst]

There are differences in sound cards for recording music. For 99&#37; of the people out there this has no bearing.

 

[BassBomb]

I am using P162 with an old JVC reciever... it is hooked to the PC via Audigy2 coaxial digital line...

It sounds great, I do have a sub though also

 

[alcoholbob]

The percentage sign is jacked on this forum software lol. It just comes out as jibberish. Not very compatible with ascii I guess.

 

[electroju]

If you use the digital out then it doesn't matter if it is a $5 sound card or a $5K sound card. All that matters is the chip is passing the digital bit perfect, which most onboard chipsets do now.

I already say that. Read my previous post again.

When dealing with digital audio, there is jitter distortions causing the audio to be not as pure as it left the computer.

FYI, there is no such thing as being perfect.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I already say that. Read my previous post again.

When dealing with digital audio, there is jitter distortions causing the audio to be not as pure as it left the computer.

FYI, there is no such thing as being perfect.

Inside my computer, when the data leaves my hard drive and travels along the SATA cable, by the time it reaches my motherboard, is it not as pure as when it left my hard drive?

 

[s44]

Don't feed the troll.

"Jitter" is the latest brand of audiophile snake oil.

 

[GrumpyMan]

The percentage sign is jacked on this forum software lol. It just comes out as jibberish. Not very compatible with ascii I guess.

I've been wondering what character did this: 99&#37

 

[alcoholbob]

^

Jitter in today's electronics operate in hundreds of pico seconds, or one billionth of a second. Some in the audio industry claim it is necessary to stay within single digit pico seconds (one trillionth of a second) to be completely inaudible. Who knows? Pioneer does have a feature on its receivers that link with its TVs and blu ray players called Phase Control which is a PLL circuit designed to reduce jitter. Whether you believe in it or not, some manufacturers have decided to tackle it.

People that claim to hear the difference either have superhuman hearing , have something on the receiver altering the sound besides the DAC or it is the placebo effect.

There is no way a person can tell the difference in a DAC that is rated 109db dynamic range and one rated 112db when even the test equipment has to be well calibrated to see it.

SNR is not very important in music. Especially at close listening locations. It's much more important in home theater where output levels are high.

Specs may not be entirely accurate from device to device...at 109db or 112db SNR, when your output hits 109dB or 112dB, distortion will have equal output of the original wave form. Not sure how it will sound, but theoretically it would be complete jibberish. It really becomes an issue of sitting distance from the TV, since every doubling of distance reduces output by 3dB. Obviously if you have an extremely large room and you are aiming for THX reference levels, a 109dB SNR DAC will not meet your needs.

Some audiophiles seem to consider the internal DAC of HK AVR not as good as some other DAC. And some claim the sound card DAC's to be decent. I could not tell.

If they are sitting 3-5 feet from their speakers, listening at reasonable levels, DAC is not that important (unless the specs are overstated). Of course, most of the specs are usually measured at the chips native sample rate (aka 24/96 or 24/192) so their performance at 44.1 may be at a much lower level. The biggest part of sound quality is in the gain stage and the quality of the pre-amp IMO, followed by the ability of the power amp to pump out current and a friendly distortion profile (less higher order distortions).

 

[alkemyst]

Don't feed the troll.

"Jitter" is the latest brand of audiophile snake oil.

Not really snake oil, but meanless to probably 99% out there that just want to play movies at home or frag / slash / shoot things in games.

Even those doing garage band mixing aren't so affected.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

SNR is not very important in music. Especially at close listening locations. It's much more important in home theater where output levels are high.

Specs may not be entirely accurate from device to device...at 109db or 112db SNR, when your output hits 109dB or 112dB, distortion will have equal output of the original wave form. Not sure how it will sound, but theoretically it would be complete jibberish. It really becomes an issue of sitting distance from the TV, since every doubling of distance reduces output by 3dB. Obviously if you have an extremely large room and you are aiming for THX reference levels, a 109dB SNR DAC will not meet your needs.

So you're saying that someone would be able to hear 1dB of noise when they've got 109dB of signal blasting them out of their chair?

Also a 109dB SNR is a much greater ratio than, say, 1% THD or even 0.01% THD. 110dB is 11 orders of magnitude. Next to even 0.01% THD, 109dB SNR is a drop in the bucket. And real-world speakers can't come close to even 0.01% accuracy, let alone real-world speakers in a real-world room. You're worrying about minutiae, literally.

 

[0roo0roo]

Not so much the reciever, but the speakers are the limiting factor, cheap computer speakers are built with thin cabinets and small midrange drivers etc.

 

[electroju]

The signal to noise ratio is the noise floor of the amplifier. It is also relates how dynamic it can be in its range. PCM is around -70 decibels. If the signal to noise ratio is better than this, than the signal to noise ratio becomes irrelevant. Though it is always good to shoot for better signal to noise ratios when dealing with better formats than PCM.

The THD or THD+N is the the noise of the amplifier at its noise floor. If caring for audio fidelity, THD is better value to look at. THD is not always a sure thing to look at.

If there is plenty of small speakers drivers and in a well designed box, it can handle bass because reproducing bass is all about moving air and a lot of it.

The THD of speakers is hopefully at 3%, but some can be a lot higher. Companies that care for the audio fidelity, will try for 3% for the speakers or lower. Computer speakers might be close to 30% to 50%. Infinite baffle speakers are near 0% for THD.

Jitter distortion does cause problems, so it is something to think about. Jitter distortions are not new. They are actually old back when digital audio was first introduced. Audiophiles whine about it, so manufactures have to include something to minimize the effects of jitter distortions.

 

[alcoholbob]

So you're saying that someone would be able to hear 1dB of noise when they've got 109dB of signal blasting them out of their chair?

109dB SNR is noise floor at 1Vrms. At 109dB of output, you would need an SNR of 133 with a 100WRms receiver for 1dB of noise assuming a 90dB@1Vrms at 1 meter. At a seating distance of of 3 meters, you would need an SNR of ~140.

Also a 109dB SNR is a much greater ratio than, say, 1&#37; THD or even 0.01% THD. 110dB is 11 orders of magnitude. Next to even 0.01% THD, 109dB SNR is a drop in the bucket. And real-world speakers can't come close to even 0.01% accuracy, let alone real-world speakers in a real-world room. You're worrying about minutiae, literally.

110db SNR is not 11 orders of magnitude. 1dB of noise at 110db SNR would be a THD of 0.0001%.

Also, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but no device exhibits linear behavior. At 109dB it's not exactly going to exhibit 109dB of SNR.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

109dB SNR is noise floor at 1Vrms. At 109dB of output, you would need an SNR of 133 with a 100WRms receiver for 1dB of noise assuming a 90dB@1Vrms at 1 meter. At a seating distance of of 3 meters, you would need an SNR of ~140.

110db SNR is not 11 orders of magnitude. 1dB of noise at 110db SNR would be a THD of 0.0001%.

SNR, as I understand it, is signal to noise ratio. A ratio, which should hold at any given level. Signal at 109dB => noise at 1dB. Signal at 50dB => noise at theoretical -59dB. No?

I screwed up earlier on the orders of magnitude thing. I forgot the square factor in the ratio calculations. I was just doing a straight log10. Mea culpa.

Also, I'm not sure you are aware of this, but no device exhibits linear behavior. At 109dB it's not exactly going to exhibit 109dB of SNR.

Would they not quote worst-case? How could they give a figure of 109dB without actually being able to attain it? Unless they are referring to negative decibels at lower volume levels? In any case, such extreme SNRs are only found in digital components AFAIK, and I have no doubt that such electronics are capable of attaining this kind of SNR, and maintaining it, assuming that the original signal source is capable of such resolution in the first place (which depends on the bit depth and sampling frequency, which gives the quantization error, plus any added dithering to get the base noise level).

 

[alcoholbob]

Businesses do not quote worst-case numbers. That's bad for business, obviously. Just like guys always lie to girls about their height. You would think everybody was 6'2 based on reporting alone.