# Realtek ALC898 vs Asus Xonar DX



## hansen6

Hello









Seeing as some X79 boards support Realtek ALC898 and the upcoming Z77 boards will also support it, does anyone know how it fares against a decent Asus Xonar DX 7.1?

Wondering if there's any point getting an extra sound card on a pair of speakers like, say, the Swan M50Ws

]http://www.swanspeaker.com/product/htm/view.asp?id=443]

thanks!


----------



## MrSpoon

It looks like the main difference between the 898 and the 892 is the 898 supports Dolby Home Theater, while the 892 supports THX TruStudio. Aside from that, I haven't seen any real information released on the 898, even on Realtek's website. Due to a lack of information on it, I don't think I could really give a definitive recommendation either way.

The 898 might be a great on-board sound solution, but I imagine it's a slight incremental update. I would see an on-board sound card giving a vast improvement in sound quality or features being something that would be marketed at least a little bit. Going out of some cheapo Logitechs you probably wouldn't notice a difference, but I would personally spring for the Xonar DX. I imagine through the Swan's you would notice a difference. Whether it's enough of on to justify the cost, though, is all up to your ears.


----------



## hansen6

Thanks for the answer! And damn, thought I could save some money : /


----------



## peck1234

The ALC898 is Realteks lastest chipset, and achieves the highest SNR ratio out of ANY onboard solutions. (110DB SNR)

Really no need for a dedicated card...


----------



## hansen6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *peck1234*
> 
> The ALC898 is Realteks lastest chipset, and achieves the highest SNR ratio out of ANY onboard solutions. (110DB SNR)
> Really no need for a dedicated card...












Just bought a Xonar DX. Tell me there will be at least the slightest difference.


----------



## Tacoboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hansen6*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just bought a Xonar DX. Tell me there will be at least the slightest difference.


The Xonar DX comes with a better DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) then the motherboard. so that's a plus
But the Xonar DX's (& D1, DS, DSX) ability to drive headphones is not that great.
The Asus Xonar DGX (or DG) comes with a headphone amplifier, the Xonar DX, D1, DS, DSX. do not.
But, if all your doing is using the sound card for speakers, then the DX is a good choice.
You could always add an external headphone amplifier to the Xonar DX, which makes a good combo.


----------



## hansen6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tacoboy*
> 
> The Xonar DX comes with a better DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) then the motherboard. so that's a plus
> But the Xonar DX's (& D1, DS, DSX) ability to drive headphones is not that great.
> The Asus Xonar DGX (or DG) comes with a headphone amplifier, the Xonar DX, D1, DS, DSX. do not.
> But, if all your doing is using the sound card for speakers, then the DX is a good choice.
> You could always add an external headphone amplifier to the Xonar DX, which makes a good combo.


Thanks for the information =) got the dx and some swan m50ws. sounding pretty good.


----------



## peck1234

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hansen6*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just bought a Xonar DX. Tell me there will be at least the slightest difference.


Curious to see if you can "hear" a difference between the realtek and DX?

Personally I find Asus cards to be a tad bright and inaccurate.


----------



## sammkv

I doubt onboard has a 110db SNR, more around the low 90's.

The asus comes with decent dac's and opamps which shape the sound more than onboard.


----------



## hansen6

I've not tried the onboard sound, but I will when I get home and add some comments. THink my swans are still burning in as well. they are definitely audibly clearer than the onboard sound + creative iTrigue combo i was using before.


----------



## hansen6

I'm sorry i just got home and realised the way i routed my wires, the audio cable is stretched to it's limit and cannot even reach higher by 15 cm to the mobo's audio output : |


----------



## kz26

I happened to have a chance to conduct a subjective listening test before I sold my old rig. Other than the fact that the Realtek requires a higher volume level to match the Xonar DX, I was not able to hear any difference.


----------



## peck1234

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sammkv*
> 
> I doubt onboard has a 110db SNR, more around the low 90's.
> The asus comes with decent dac's and opamps which shape the sound more than onboard.


Straight from the datasheet....

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/datasheets/ALC898_DataSheet_0.60.pdf


----------



## Paps.pt

I used to have Creative Xtremegamer PCI and the DTS Connect (had to pay 5$ do unlock the function) sounded great sending 5.1 audio from my pc my home cinema with a optical cable. My last MB burned in a surge so I had to buy a PCI-e card, decided to go with a Asus DX but I am not happy with it at all. The drivers suck, I have to change the sound source from 5.1 to 2 speakers all the time and it only has Dolby Digital Live which has a worst bitrate than DTS Connect, therefore, sounding a lot worst, at least to me.
Do any of you guys have the same problems? If I decide to change my soundcard, which one do you recommend?

Cheers


----------



## Yor_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *peck1234*
> 
> Straight from the datasheet....
> http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/datasheets/ALC898_DataSheet_0.60.pdf


Those are the specs of the codec _on paper_, in a perfect world...real world performance is not as good when you put it in the context of a noisy PC motherboard and other noisy electronic components. The actual analog signal degrades. But that pretty much applies to every other DAC/ADC/Codec too.


----------



## peck1234

Well, now that I have an ALC898 chipset I will say its good, but Im still wanting more. Ive tried the Asus STX and was not happy with the bright output of the card.

So for now I just ordered a http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829102041

So it's Creative *Sound Blaster Recon3D vs ALC898* Curious to hear which offers more dynamics and clarity.

As, Yor stated SNR aint everything and I know. Hoping this will be a clear cut case.


----------



## Simca

Stx isn't the problem if you're complaining about it being bright. Check your headphones or speakers. As for the dx, turn off all the dolby features. They don't make the fidelity of music or movies any better. Worse at best. The dx should sound much better after turning all the witchcraft off. You may have to eq your speakers appropriately depending on your ears and the quality of the speakers.

I would not buy the recon 3d

Sent from my HTC Sensation XE using Tapatalk


----------



## kanuck

Wow... interesting coincidence.

I also have the ALC898 and was close to buying either the STX or Core3D to upgrade it.

What has your experience been like having used all three now?

Can you comment on the differences between music/games and also what speakers/headphones you use?

Cheers


----------



## Cyrilmak

Either Asus Xonar DGX 's or Creative's X-Fi Titanium HD will be far better than on board. Both are excellent sound cards. On board sound is horrid, no matter what the chip set compared to a dedicated card.


----------



## Cyrilmak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kanuck*
> 
> Wow... interesting coincidence.
> I also have the ALC898 and was close to buying either the STX or Core3D to upgrade it.
> What has your experience been like having used all three now?
> Can you comment on the differences between music/games and also what speakers/headphones you use?
> Cheers


Get the Titanium HD over the Core3D stuff, or go with an Asus Xonar DGX, or STX.


----------



## logicPwn

LOL this community really dislikes Recon3D. I have a baby version of it (Recon3D USB version $125) and it's great for gaming but sucks for music.


----------



## TinDaDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *logicPwn*
> 
> LOL this community really dislikes Recon3D. I have a baby version of it (Recon3D USB version $125) and it's great for gaming but sucks for music.


USB = bad in general


----------



## logicPwn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TinDaDragon*
> 
> USB = bad in general


So I've come to realize, nobody is straight up with why but I think I've chalked it up to tons of traffic on the same bus.


----------



## Porter_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TinDaDragon*
> 
> USB = bad in general


why is that? ton's of people are happy with USB DAC's.


----------



## logicPwn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Porter_*
> 
> why is that? ton's of people are happy with USB DAC's.


I agree, tons of people are loving there ODAC right now. Soon... I will to!


----------



## ramicio

A 0 is a 0 and a 1 is a 1. It doesn't matter if it's on a motherboard, a sound card, or through a USB port. Motherboard audio sounding bad can be chalked up to the analog circuitry they use, not really it being a noisy environment.


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> A 0 is a 0 and a 1 is a 1. It doesn't matter if it's on a motherboard, a sound card, or through a USB port. Motherboard audio sounding bad can be chalked up to the analog circuitry they use, not really it being a noisy environment.


You know a lot more than many so-called "audiophiles."

The ALC898 DAC is already overkill. I'd be shocked if someone could hear the difference between the Realtek DAC and a discrete card's DAC.


----------



## Alienware69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *friend'scatdied*
> 
> You know a lot more than many so-called "audiophiles."
> The ALC898 DAC is already overkill. I'd be shocked if someone could hear the difference between the Realtek DAC and a discrete card's DAC.


Yeah I've been saying sound cards are a waste of money for years now. All you really need is high end headphones or speakers.


----------



## logicPwn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alienware69*
> 
> Yeah I've been saying sound cards are a waste of money for years now. All you really need is high end headphones or speakers.


But yet you own the Beats Pro?


----------



## worx

oppps repost


----------



## worx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alienware69*
> 
> Yeah I've been saying sound cards are a waste of money for years now. All you really need is high end headphones or speakers.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *logicPwn*
> 
> But yet you own the Beats Pro?


lul


----------



## splinterize

The Xonar D1/DX really shine if you are using headphones, IMO.

I really like the 3d positioning on mine. It also put shame to my phone.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alienware69*
> 
> Yeah I've been saying sound cards are a waste of money for years now. All you really need is high end headphones or speakers.


You're such a troll.


----------



## splinterize

sorry double post


----------



## voxox

Before I continue on, I've own these cards, Titanium HD, Xonar STX, DS. If your headphones do need an amp, then you will not hear any difference between STX and DS other than STX being much louder. HD was tad bit brighter with my Sennheiser HD598s. I also have the ALC 898 on my X58 board and was unable to hear any difference between the Xonar DS ( w/ LME49720NA OpAMP) with my HD555s. But EQ change was much more prominent and noticeable on the DS.

Onboard audio has come a long way and it improved significantly.


----------



## logicPwn

I will give a nice review when I get my Z77 with the onboard audio to. I'll do ALC898 vs Recon3D USB vs ODAC


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> A 0 is a 0 and a 1 is a 1. It doesn't matter if it's on a motherboard, a sound card, or through a USB port. Motherboard audio sounding bad can be chalked up to the analog circuitry they use, not really it being a noisy environment.


Why you're wrong. Essentially, lots of noise on a motherboards grounding plane, etc can alter the sound and low quality cables, etc can cause that eye to close, which makes a blip, sure, a 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0 but you can still screw up a 1 getting through the wire as a 1.

Plus, if the quality of the PCB makes no difference; why is it quite clearly audible when you have a high wattage device in a nearby PCIe slot to a soundcard sometimes? Or even with onboard, you get my point?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *friend'scatdied*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> A 0 is a 0 and a 1 is a 1. It doesn't matter if it's on a motherboard, a sound card, or through a USB port. Motherboard audio sounding bad can be chalked up to the analog circuitry they use, not really it being a noisy environment.
> 
> 
> 
> You know a lot more than many so-called "audiophiles."
> 
> The ALC898 DAC is already overkill. I'd be shocked if someone could hear the difference between the Realtek DAC and a discrete card's DAC.
Click to expand...

I only have the ALC889 but I can definitely tell the difference on a cheapish TDK headset and my Edifier 2.1 setup, it's pretty obvious to multiple people tbh, the difference is way smaller but some people can hear it and obviously a soundcard offers much greater range of choices in how exactly you want it to sound. (As logicPwn said)


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> *Why you're wrong*. Essentially, lots of noise on a motherboards grounding plane, etc can alter the sound and low quality cables, etc can cause that eye to close, which makes a blip, sure, a 1 is a 1 and a 0 is a 0 but you can still screw up a 1 getting through the wire as a 1.


Strawman. We know that even speaker wire reduces signal quality as a function of length, the question is how much and whether this is audible.
As for the "presence or absence of active electronics in the transmission path" excerpt, what that's telling us is that the front panel audio outputs are going to suffer from a degraded signal. We also know this.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I only have the ALC889 but I can definitely tell the difference on a cheapish TDK headset and my Edifier 2.1 setup, it's pretty obvious to multiple people tbh, the difference is way smaller but *some people can hear it* (1) and obviously a *soundcard offers much greater range of choices in how exactly you want it to sound* (2). (As logicPwn said)


1. Golden ear argument. No, on an output-level-matched blind scenario you can not be able to reliably tell 2 modern DACs apart. People have tried for the past several decades and have failed to establish evidence.
2. On PCs, this is just digital equalization. On "audiophile" DACs (which are actually _signal_ processors), this is deliberate distortion.

Better to just get a suitable amplifier and feed it from the line-out, or get a soundcard with a sufficient amplification stage for your needs, than to invest needlessly in a soundcard for a different DAC.


----------



## Brutuz

Except it's not the DAC, that was the biggest part of getting a sound-card but the cleaner ground plane, etc are also reasons and make a difference, the onboard now has relatively equal or close DACs, sure, but that doesn't mean that the rest is as good or that the power delivery is as clean, for example.
Not everyone hates equalization, I know a few people are of the mindset that because everyone has different ears, what a sound engineer thinks is great on an album might be slightly different to what you think is great, hence the equalization.


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Except it's not the DAC, that was the biggest part of getting a sound-card but the cleaner ground plane, etc are also reasons and make a difference, the onboard now has relatively equal or close DACs, sure, but that doesn't mean that the rest is as good or that the power delivery is as clean, for example.
> Not everyone hates equalization, I know a few people are of the mindset that because everyone has different ears, what a sound engineer thinks is great on an album might be slightly different to what you think is great, hence the equalization.


Yes -- it depends on the implementation, but is that difference really audible?

Let's say you match the output levels of an onboard chipset and a discrete soundcard, ceteris paribus and perform a DBT. Would you really be able to reliably pick the two apart, and on what does it depend on (e.g. other components, onboard implementation, et alia)?

You don't have to have a discrete card to have access to equalization. Onboard chipsets have a fair number of first- and third-party options available to them.


----------



## Brutuz

I'd say it is, I could tell a difference between my Xonar DX and my old Creative X-Fi in a way I'm 90% sure was down to the power circuitry, I know a lot of people modded a certain power delivery capacitor on X-Fis to improve the sound too, I'd say the DAC is 50% of the difference, power circuitry 25% and everything else about 25% total.


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I'd say it is, I could tell a difference between my Xonar DX and my old Creative X-Fi in a way I'm 90% sure was down to the power circuitry, I know a lot of people modded a certain power delivery capacitor on X-Fis to improve the sound too, I'd say the DAC is 50% of the difference, power circuitry 25% and everything else about 25% total.


The comparison wouldn't really be valid unless you matched the output levels within 0.1dB, though. Most people don't match levels properly when comparing these things.

DACs don't make a difference. There's actually quite a bit of literature proving that modern DACs, for the most part, sound the same (or rather, disproving that modern DACs sound different).


----------



## adridu59

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *logicPwn*
> 
> LOL this community really dislikes Recon3D.


Maybe because some people don't like scams.


----------



## ramicio

A 0 is a 0 and a 1 is a 1. Fat chance there are going to be errors with today's technology. I don't agree about all DACs sounding the same. There are golden ears who claim a cable will alter the sound of a digital signal, and then on the complete opposite end of a spectrum there are the science zealots who think we know every secret of the universe and theorems = fact and psychoacoustics can fool everyone. I like neither.


----------



## Brutuz

A 0 is a 0 and a 1 is a 1, however if a cable is bad then that 1 may become a 0 in the middle of the cable; it's *way* harder to disrupt the signal for digital than analog but it can still be done, does it make a probable and repeatable difference in the real world? Probably only for a handful of people in the world, and only if they're using ultra-high end hardware anyway.


----------



## ramicio

You're not going to hear one bit being off. You don't need an expensive cable to transport data, just a good one. It's been proven over and over and over that cables don't do a damn thing.


----------



## Brutuz

Definitely not, it _can_ make a difference but you'd be far better off spending the cash elsewhere; I'm mainly talking about extremely low quality cables vs semi-decent (ie. Those $1 ones off eBay) ones, not rip-off monster cables.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Personally i had a X-FI Titanium. Now have ALC898. No difference with Cheap headphones and Z-2300.


----------



## Simca

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *friend'scatdied*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I'd say it is, I could tell a difference between my Xonar DX and my old Creative X-Fi in a way I'm 90% sure was down to the power circuitry, I know a lot of people modded a certain power delivery capacitor on X-Fis to improve the sound too, I'd say the DAC is 50% of the difference, power circuitry 25% and everything else about 25% total.
> 
> 
> 
> The comparison wouldn't really be valid unless you matched the output levels within 0.1dB, though. Most people don't match levels properly when comparing these things.
> 
> DACs do not make a difference. There's actually quite a bit of literature proving that modern DACs sound the same (or rather, disproving that modern DACs sound different).
Click to expand...

Is that peachtree purchase hurting?


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Definitely not, it _can_ make a difference but you'd be far better off spending the cash elsewhere; I'm mainly talking about extremely low quality cables vs semi-decent (ie. Those $1 ones off eBay) ones, not rip-off monster cables.


That is why no one is going to tell you "all cables sound the same" or "all DACs sound the same." There is a small minority of each that are either faulty or designed incompetently (sometimes intentionally so -- look at non-oversampling DACs as a prime example). By-and-large, the vast majority of modern DACs and cables do not sound different.

If a difference is determinable with confidence, that difference has an (or multiple) electronic explanation that can be defined by measurements. Distortion, noise, frequency response. However, our threshold of hearing is far more generous than many would care to admit.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Simca*
> 
> Is that peachtree purchase hurting?


Back when I was a college sophomore in 2009 I was duped into believing the power of suggestion. It's not really so bad when you figure out years after you've completed your journey.


----------



## ramicio

A NOS DAC just doesn't resample the signal before going to the reconstruction filter. It doesn't output some jagged waveform. I assume there are some people who do design such circuits, though.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *friend'scatdied*
> 
> The comparison wouldn't really be valid unless you matched the output levels within 0.1dB, though. Most people don't match levels properly when comparing these things.
> DACs don't make a difference. There's actually quite a bit of literature proving that modern DACs, for the most part, sound the same (or rather, disproving that modern DACs sound different).


highly depends on equipment used and methodology. Also negates the issue of output impedance, which does affect frequency response and is audible.
What I use as the benchmark is an IMD measurement of 0.003% or lower.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2962

Yes, there are many other relevant measurements, but that is one of the more reliable ones for objectively measured audible sound quality.

Here's the spec sheet for the ALC898:

http://goo.gl/ZXr6R

The key things under page 82 is the THD+N DAC and THD+N headphone output. Amplified output impedance is fine at 2 ohm and encouraging.
However factor in that that's the max the DAC chip can do and the real performance is highly dependent on circuit implementation. Take this as it'll measure much worse than the max specs.

e.g. the Fiio E10 uses a Wolfson WM8740 DAC rated at -104dB THD+N @ 0 dBFS
However it only reaches -86dB @ 0 dBFS measured.

As said, IMD is a far better 'real world' measurement than THD.


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi*
> 
> highly depends on equipment used and methodology. Also negates the issue of output impedance, which does affect frequency response and is audible.
> What I use as the benchmark is an IMD measurement of 0.003% or lower.
> http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2962
> Yes, there are many other relevant measurements, but that is one of the more reliable ones for objectively measured audible sound quality.


That is a measurable effect. Ceteris paribus, they will sound the same. If you design an equivalent output stage for DAC A and DAC B, they will suffer the same alterations of the frequency response.

Of course, the key here is that everything we can hear can be defined by measurements. Every difference is electronically explainable -- at this point I think high output impedance is just bad/archaic design, anyway.

NOS DACs are just bad design. They sacrifice frequency response in order to fix time domain response that isn't even a problem (or rather, is inaudible).


----------



## ramicio

Everything is not explainable. Not oversampling means nothing. There's no point in resampling before it reaches the reconstruction filter. I think you're thinking of some device that doesn't exist that doesn't even have a reconstruction filter and just outputs literal sample points in a jagged manner.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *friend'scatdied*
> 
> That is a measurable effect. Ceteris paribus, they will sound the same. If you design an equivalent output stage for DAC A and DAC B, they will suffer the same alterations of the frequency response.
> Of course, the key here is that everything we can hear can be defined my measurements. Every difference is electronically explainable -- at this point I think high output impedance is just bad/archaic design, anyway.
> NOS DACs are just bad design. They sacrifice frequency response in order to fix time domain response that isn't even a problem (or rather, is inaudible).


Not doubting that, but in the real world, there is bad and different design implementations, including in output impedance. High output impedance is often used as a shortcut halfass way to preventing dumb consumers from destroying their ears and audio equipment from high dB e.g. no doubt used in the Samsung Galaxy S2 design with the joke 49 ohm output impedance.

Yes, as agreed, no point in NOS DACs.
Most of audio and human hearing in a physics world standpoint has been figured out since the mid 1980s.

the ALC898 is great spec'ed DAC chip but as said, in the real world, circuit implementation determines everything.

Also factor in cost of motherboards that have the ALC 898 vs a cheaper motherboard + soundcard. Not to mention the software features of soundcards such as Dolby and of course, more connection options.


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> Everything is not explainable.


Example?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> Not oversampling means nothing. There's no point in resampling before it reaches the reconstruction filter. I think you're thinking of some device that doesn't exist that doesn't even have a reconstruction filter and just outputs literal sample points in a jagged manner.


Just giving an example of bad design -- there are still plenty of "ultra high-end" designs that eschew use of a reconstruction filter (many of which include archaic ladder-type DACs that measure terribly to begin with). They sacrifice high-end frequency response to create perfect square waves. This isn't a big deal to the old, wealthy crowd they're marketed to anyway -- the audible impact to the FR isn't as important to them as the inaudible impulse response benefits. Doubtful they can hear well at 20KHz anyway.

Why would you create a NOS design in this Delta-Sigma age? There are too many benefits to filtering to ignore.


----------



## ramicio

Phsycoacoustics...

What you are talking about is not a NOS DAC. You are talking about some BS DIY audiophool design that some jerkoff coined as a NOS DAC. It's literally not even a DAC if it doesn't have a reconstruction filter. I don't think there has EVER been a commercial chip sold that does what you describe. Non-oversampling means it does not resample before the reconstruction filter, which is a good thing.


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> Phsycoacoustics...
> What you are talking about is not a NOS DAC. You are talking about some BS DIY audiophool design that some jerkoff coined as a NOS DAC. It's literally not even a DAC if it doesn't have a reconstruction filter. I don't think there has EVER been a commercial chip sold that does what you describe. Non-oversampling means it does not resample before the reconstruction filter, which is a good thing.


That's not the same thing. We can measure everything in sound perception with current tools. However, tying this data back to accurate psychoacoustic models is something that remains a point of significant (potentially futile) research. Psychoacoustics is opening a can of worms since you include linguistics, mental associations and reactions: what is "accuracy?"

Chips don't do it. The equipment designers do. Yes, every _competently-designed_ DAC needs a reconstruction filter.

What are the audible (and thereby measurable) benefits of "not resampling before the reconstruction filter"? Oversampling (and noise shaping) are some of the milestone characteristics of contemporary delta-sigma designs.


----------



## ramicio

Psychoacoustics are BS and always will be. If someone's fine being a cheap-ass who thinks they only need ~200 kbps, fine, but it just doesn't apply to those of us with ears who want artifact-free music.

The reconstruction filter "over-samples" anyway by many many times, anyway. The over-sampling you're talking about is just re-sampling. It's done before the reconstruction filter and is just as pointless as up-sampling in software. They are usually only 4x or 8x, so no, it has zero to do with the reconstruction filter.


----------



## mgxdrop

Hello, im new here. I'm from the Philippines where people cheapout most of the time when building their rig, but that's another story









I recently needed to buy a Sound Card when the other day i was playing then a sudden Lightning Storm came about. A powersurge (i think) came about and made the electricity flicker, and as a result my on-board (Realtek ALC889 on a gigabyte m750sli) audio got fried as well as my TV Tuner.

I'm no audiophile and i really am not into discrete audio when my monthly income is about us$500. I chanced upon discussions about audio cards and decided to get either the Xonar DSX /DS or DX since availability here in manila is very limited to parts like these although we have a lot of high end Graphic Cards, MoBo and Processors readily available in Stores, again the purchase was because of necessity. I have to stick to buying what they have in store since buying on-line is entirely a difficult proposition because of importation taxes/duties.

I ended up buying the DSX since it was about half the price of the DX and has pcie rather than PCI because i plan to retire my 4 year old rig soon.

As a casual Gamer, i immediately found the audio being to rich as compared to my on board audio. i fiddled around the settings to find out where i'd feel comfortable. but still i feel like the on-board audio is what i'm "used" to, that the DSX was giving me too much of what i expect from what i hear in my games. BTW i mainly use 5.1 speakers (logitech x540) i rarely use headphone, but when i do i use a Skullcandy Hesh, again because of cost considerations.

After trying it out in CoD AW2, H.A.W.X. and Starcraft2, there were sounds i didn't use to notice when i was on onboard audio. Does it mean that discrete audio is better for me? again i'd say it's not what i'm used to.

Trying it out on music from iTunes, playing Adele, U2, Sting, Soundgarden, Judgement Night OST, Bee Gee's and Barry White which were directly ripped from the CD using apple lossless encoder, i find the sound quality quite surprising. some of the odd hisses and unexpected clicks are now gone, i would say clearer and more distinct sounding music was given by this card. But i would say a little too clear. Although now i'm able to make the music louder without loosing quality even when the volume is turned on to the highest setting it's still clear unlike before when using the onboard audio.

Movies i will try latter, i'm still looking for a good HD movie to try out . And i'll be testing the DSX soon on my two other rigs an HTPC with an Gigabyte MA785GM-US2H and PhenomII X2 550BE and an Old Foxconn 975X7AB-8EKRS2H with a Q6600 just to have a fair comparison.

My Gaming/Photo Editing/Work PC has a Gigabyte M750SLI-DS4, Phenom II x4 940BE, Prolimatech Mega Shadow, Palit GTX 460 1GB, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2-1100, Corsair HX750, 2x WD 640GB Black and 1 640GB Green on a Lancool k62.

Sorry for the very long post


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> Psychoacoustics are BS and always will be. If someone's fine being a cheap-ass who thinks they only need ~200 kbps, fine, but it just doesn't apply to those of us with ears who want artifact-free music.
> The reconstruction filter "over-samples" anyway by many many times, anyway. The over-sampling you're talking about is just re-sampling. It's done before the reconstruction filter and is just as pointless as up-sampling in software. They are usually only 4x or 8x, so no, it has zero to do with the reconstruction filter.


Why would you not oversample? It makes filter design much easier and construction cheaper. It is an important part of ADC/DAC design. Are you certain you do not have them confused? I agree that up-sampling can be a bit silly in a competent design.

Again, I contend that there is no good in NOS DACs.


----------



## adridu59

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mgxdrop*
> 
> Sorry for the very long post


No need to, great post. I am myself considering buying a soundcard.


----------



## ramicio

That makes zero sense. This is why digital audio's sample rate isn't just 40 kHz, it's 44.1 or 48.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> Psychoacoustics are BS and always will be. If someone's fine being a cheap-ass who thinks they only need ~200 kbps, fine, but it just doesn't apply to those of us with ears who want artifact-free music..


Modern lossy audio codecs (i.e. not mp3) at high bitrates reproduce zero artifacts within the audio spectrum. This can easily be seen via a spectrogram vs. the lossless source.
It's a 5 minute experiment you can do yourself via the freeware Spectro.

Also there is zero evidence that ultrasonic sounds (beyond human hearing of ~22kHz) affect the audible spectrum in anyway, including pitch.

Lossless is far more about data integrity as it should be in the computer science realm.


----------



## Simca

The fact that this questioned is still asked after so many years and so many threads is laughable.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> That makes zero sense. This is why digital audio's sample rate isn't just 40 kHz, it's 44.1 or 48.


What doesn't make sense? I hope you're not referring to oversampling internally in a DAC. It's classical, well-known result that is demonstrated many times over in practical systems, in audio and other others.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi*
> 
> Modern lossy audio codecs (i.e. not mp3) at high bitrates reproduce zero artifacts within the audio spectrum. This can easily be seen via a spectrogram vs. the lossless source.
> It's a 5 minute experiment you can do yourself via the freeware Spectro.
> 
> Also there is zero evidence that ultrasonic sounds (beyond human hearing of ~22kHz) affect the audible spectrum in anyway, including pitch.
> 
> Lossless is far from about data integrity as it should be in the computer science realm.


First of all, there is a difference in the output, so maybe it would be better not to say "zero artifacts" because certainly there are artifacts (even if they are extremely small in magnitude, quite possibly inaudible in the presence of the actual audio content remaining, auditory masking, etc.). Secondly, I feel like we've been through this before, but how can you tell anything of that sort by looking at a spectrogram? There's no way you can eyeball those things from that kind of data.... Unless you say that you're zooming in so far in the spectrogram as to look at the result of every FFT-but if you did that, you'd see that the FFT results are marginally different between lossy and lossless.

Finally, it's probably misleading to say there's "zero evidence" regarding ultrasonic sounds affecting audible spectrum. In real-world audio gear, you can definitely get intermodulation products from ultrasonics ending up in the audible spectrum (though not necessarily at any significant level). So it's probably better not to have any. That said, with unreasonably-high levels, the pressure from ultrasonic sounds can be detected themselves.


----------



## ramicio

It makes no sense for a DAC because you've already applied your pass band when going through an ADC. Again, this is why the sample rates for digital audio are not at a hard 40 kHz.

There is not zero evidence for ultrasonics not being sensed by humans.

Even modern lossy codecs do produce artifacts.

You science-as-your-religion nuts are every bit as misleading as the multi-$1,000 cable crowd.


----------



## deafboy

Finding all of this very interesting.... thanks you all


----------



## mikeaj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> It makes no sense for a DAC because you've already applied your pass band when going through an ADC. Again, this is why the sample rates for digital audio are not at a hard 40 kHz.


Just so we're clear, you know how most modern audio DACs are, right? Delta-sigma implementations?

Anyway, even ignoring that and looking at classical DACs, oversampling lets you use a simpler (with less phase issues too, less time-domain ringing) low-pass filter. Also, with the usual assumptions, the upsampling lets you push the quantization noise to more frequencies yet keep the signal content to the original band. When you low-pass filter at the end, with higher upsampling, you're cutting out a higher percentage of the noise. Again, check a standard DSP textbook...


----------



## ramicio

Cool story. If you believe that, then it's a good case for these "pointless" sampling rates.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> Psychoacoustics are BS and always will be. If someone's fine being a cheap-ass who thinks they only need ~200 kbps, fine, but it just doesn't apply to those of us with ears who want artifact-free music..
> 
> 
> 
> Modern lossy audio codecs (i.e. not mp3) at high bitrates reproduce zero artifacts within the audio spectrum. This can easily be seen via a spectrogram vs. the lossless source.
> It's a 5 minute experiment you can do yourself via the freeware Spectro.
> 
> Also there is zero evidence that ultrasonic sounds (beyond human hearing of ~22kHz) affect the audible spectrum in anyway, including pitch.
> 
> Lossless is far more about data integrity as it should be in the computer science realm.
Click to expand...

I suggest listening to music with many instruments doing completely different things at once, FLAC shines over MP3, ogg vorbis and AAC in my testing at least. (Subjective, but I did do a blind-test based off the CD files with a few of my friends and they all said the FLAC version sounded better)

Maybe it's not artifacting, or ultra-sonic sounds but _something_ does sound better with FLAC.


----------



## friend'scatdied

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mikeaj*
> 
> Just so we're clear, you know how most modern audio DACs are, right? Delta-sigma implementations?
> Anyway, even ignoring that and looking at classical DACs, oversampling lets you use a simpler (with less phase issues too, less time-domain ringing) low-pass filter. Also, with the usual assumptions, the upsampling lets you push the quantization noise to more frequencies yet keep the signal content to the original band. When you low-pass filter at the end, with higher upsampling, you're cutting out a higher percentage of the noise. Again, check a standard DSP textbook...


Correct.

I didn't bother responding because I wasn't sure he knew what he was talking about.









The days before oversampling were truly the dark ages of DAC design..


----------



## ramicio

But yet people prefer those "dark ages" with their own ears...


----------



## Brutuz

Hearing is subjective, I notice the difference between ogg vorbis and FLAC in some songs as do most of my friends but a few don't, some people enjoy a completely different sound to others.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> But yet people prefer those "dark ages" with their own ears...


Ears or brains? Is the preference based on the sound or based on the expectations, something philosophical? Or because of another difference in the design? By the way, what audio DACs these days aren't oversampling internally during the D/A process, besides those specifically labeled and marketed as NOS (no oversampling)?

Though honestly, for some headphones, some people quite like single-ended OTL tube amplifiers, _that's_ definitely the dark ages, and that actually and verifiably sounds different. I'm not going to say there's something wrong with having a certain preference.


----------



## ramicio

If something is better liked is it not better despite not measuring as good for the religious science nuts? I wouldn't exactly call tube amps the dark ages. They don't distort unless they are over-driven.


----------



## Simca

I can hear supersonics and they effect music.

Prove me wrong.


----------



## mikeaj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ramicio*
> 
> If something is better liked is it not better despite not measuring as good for the religious science nuts? I wouldn't exactly call tube amps the dark ages. They don't distort unless they are over-driven.


Well, I mostly just meant that people tend not to use vacuum tubes for most applications these days unless the alternative is a lot worse. Dark ages was when computers filled the size of a room and had to be serviced nonstop because a tube would blow every other second. I mean, a single vacuum tube with the right bias, conditions, is supposed to be more linear than a single transistor. Depends on the use, what's needed, what you can get away with.

I don't think I speak for the so-called group of "religious science nuts" but personally, I'd want to confirm the reason behind the popularity. Sometimes the right explanation may not be the common one proffered. Anyway, there are different ways to define "better" so you should probably start from there.

And yeah, plenty of tube amps don't distort much (it really depends on the design), but most of the common single-ended OTL headphone amp designs really do have output impedance like 100 ohms, THD at reasonable loads expressed in whole number percentages or at least high fractions of a percent, pretty high noise levels (really really good power supply filtering isn't cheap), etc. Give me a break, now... leaving "better" or "worse" sound aside, at least we can say it's "different" and should sound different using plenty of headphones?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Simca*
> 
> I can hear supersonics and they effect music.
> 
> Prove me wrong.


Hm, you may need to serve as a lab rat willing test participant for a while.









But seriously now, I'm really not an expert on human physiology, but the capability of humans tends to be in a certain range because of the way the parts are structured. You don't expect to find anybody with eagle-like visual acuity, even if you don't test every last person on the planet.


----------



## Simca

I know "subsonics" can effect music/feeling for sure...why not supersonics?


----------



## mikeaj

So in the previous post, you say "hear" but now you just say "effect"-an important distinction.

I think it's easier for the body to pick up low frequencies, even if it's not really processed by the auditory system.

Anyway, like I said earlier, utlrasonics are supposed to be detectable by humans if the level is high enough. If it's detectable, it can make a difference (of dubious importance, but still). Also, ultrasonics can cause intermodulation products in playback gear that appear in the audible spectrum.

Though actually, what does it mean to hear? What's the mechanism? Maybe the brain or ear can modulate ultrasonics down into the audible spectrum? Is it called hearing if you're tapping the cochlea via bone conduction?

I'm no subject matter expert, so I'm not going to say anything for sure. But if there's a claim out of the mainstream understanding that wants to be taken seriously, there's a process of testing and verifying...


----------



## Simca

Hearing was used in the same way that we say that we refer to typing as speaking on the internet...and caps lock being yelling.

"I was talking to mikeaj"

"No, you were typing to him."


----------



## Darren9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Simca*
> 
> I know "subsonics" can effect music/feeling for sure...why not supersonics?


I don't think subsonics and supersonics are even real words







Ultra and Infra-sound?


----------



## Simca

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Darren9*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Simca*
> 
> I know "subsonics" can effect music/feeling for sure...why not supersonics?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think subsonics and supersonics are even real words
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultra and Infra-sound?
Click to expand...

NO!

It's whatever I say it is.


----------



## Alienware69

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Simca*
> 
> NO!
> It's whatever I say it is.


Not the first time you've been wrong, kid.


----------



## blindwarrior

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mgxdrop*
> 
> Hello, im new here. I'm from the Philippines where people cheapout most of the time when building their rig, but that's another story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recently needed to buy a Sound Card when the other day i was playing then a sudden Lightning Storm came about. A powersurge (i think) came about and made the electricity flicker, and as a result my on-board (Realtek ALC889 on a gigabyte m750sli) audio got fried as well as my TV Tuner.
> 
> I'm no audiophile and i really am not into discrete audio when my monthly income is about us$500. I chanced upon discussions about audio cards and decided to get either the Xonar DSX /DS or DX since availability here in manila is very limited to parts like these although we have a lot of high end Graphic Cards, MoBo and Processors readily available in Stores, again the purchase was because of necessity. I have to stick to buying what they have in store since buying on-line is entirely a difficult proposition because of importation taxes/duties.
> 
> I ended up buying the DSX since it was about half the price of the DX and has pcie rather than PCI because i plan to retire my 4 year old rig soon.
> 
> As a casual Gamer, i immediately found the audio being to rich as compared to my on board audio. i fiddled around the settings to find out where i'd feel comfortable. but still i feel like the on-board audio is what i'm "used" to, that the DSX was giving me too much of what i expect from what i hear in my games. BTW i mainly use 5.1 speakers (logitech x540) i rarely use headphone, but when i do i use a Skullcandy Hesh, again because of cost considerations.
> 
> After trying it out in CoD AW2, H.A.W.X. and Starcraft2, there were sounds i didn't use to notice when i was on onboard audio. Does it mean that discrete audio is better for me? again i'd say it's not what i'm used to.
> 
> Trying it out on music from iTunes, playing Adele, U2, Sting, Soundgarden, Judgement Night OST, Bee Gee's and Barry White which were directly ripped from the CD using apple lossless encoder, i find the sound quality quite surprising. some of the odd hisses and unexpected clicks are now gone, i would say clearer and more distinct sounding music was given by this card. But i would say a little too clear. Although now i'm able to make the music louder without loosing quality even when the volume is turned on to the highest setting it's still clear unlike before when using the onboard audio.
> 
> Movies i will try latter, i'm still looking for a good HD movie to try out . And i'll be testing the DSX soon on my two other rigs an HTPC with an Gigabyte MA785GM-US2H and PhenomII X2 550BE and an Old Foxconn 975X7AB-8EKRS2H with a Q6600 just to have a fair comparison.
> 
> My Gaming/Photo Editing/Work PC has a Gigabyte M750SLI-DS4, Phenom II x4 940BE, Prolimatech Mega Shadow, Palit GTX 460 1GB, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2-1100, Corsair HX750, 2x WD 640GB Black and 1 640GB Green on a Lancool k62.
> 
> Sorry for the very long post


That board has 108 signal to noise ratio, 2 less than the ALC898, which itself is only 6 less than the Creative Zx. Can those minute differences really be meaningful?

Also I looked up the Digidesign digi001 computer sound recording professional hardware and that was only 98! So the ALC898 has better reproduction capability than a lot of records recorded in the 2000s based on SNR. Really?


----------



## Simca

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alienware69*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Simca*
> 
> NO!
> It's whatever I say it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the first time you've been wrong, kid.
Click to expand...

u rite dawg i jus sold mah hedfoenz n get me sum dre beetz deez da shizzlenizzle. ima dribble down in va.

bout to sell awf mah pc n get me an alienwhere


----------



## coachmark2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Simca*
> 
> u rite dawg i jus sold mah hedfoenz n get me sum dre beetz deez da shizzlenizzle. ima dribble down in va.
> 
> bout to sell awf mah pc n get me an alienwhere


----------



## cuad

The first six pages of this thread are great. Simca chimping out in the last three is gold.


----------



## adridu59

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cuad*
> 
> The first six pages of this thread are great. Simca chimping out in the last three is gold.


Yea hehe also I wonder who repped me, that was fun.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ

I may have killed my STX. So, I'm using a motherboard with an ALC898 and its painful.


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BababooeyHTJ*
> 
> I may have killed my STX. So, I'm using a motherboard with an ALC898 and its painful.


Can't really compare the two...


----------



## BababooeyHTJ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deafboy*
> 
> Can't really compare the two...


There are a lot of people in this thread claiming that you can. My stereo sounds awful at the moment and I didn't find that much of a difference between the STX and the DX aside from the headphone amp and ability to switch between headphones and my receiver.


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BababooeyHTJ*
> 
> There are a lot of people in this thread claiming that you can. My stereo sounds awful at the moment and I didn't find that much of a difference between the STX and the DX.


DX vs STX will be more dependent on your equipment and source as far as I know.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deafboy*
> 
> DX vs STX will be more dependent on your equipment and source as far as I know.


My point is that the difference between good DACs isn't all that big. From what I"m hearing the ALC898 isn't a good DAC. Definitely not comparable to the Xonar Dx.

The xonar DX uses a very good dac, the one in the stx isn't that big a step up.


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BababooeyHTJ*
> 
> My point is that the difference between good DACs isn't all that big. From what I"m hearing the ALC898 isn't a good DAC. Definitely not comparable to the Xonar Dx.
> 
> The xonar DX uses a very good dac, the one in the stx isn't that big a step up.


The difference will certainly be noticeable from lossless source and higher end equipment.

The DX is better than onboard, no doubt, but it depends on the user, source, and equipment.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ

You're missing my point.


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BababooeyHTJ*
> 
> You're missing my point.


I don't believe I am, lol.


----------



## BababooeyHTJ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deafboy*
> 
> I don't believe I am, lol.


I'm pretty sure that you are. You really start to see diminishing returns with higher end DACs.

I thought that this post sums it up pretty well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mikeaj*
> 
> So do you still have the DX and E9? Or anyway, what's currently in possession?
> 
> Which other cards allow for switching between headphone and speaker outs (in software I guess)? I wouldn't know, as I haven't looked at the options that closely in a while.
> 
> btw, STX is pretty much a DX minus some extra analog output channels, with slightly better D/A performance, with a headphone amp similar to E9 integrated. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that DX + E9 is pretty much the same as STX.


----------



## deafboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BababooeyHTJ*
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you are. You really start to see diminishing returns with higher end DACs.
> 
> I thought that this post sums it up pretty well.


Yeah, agreed that sums it up well.

Doesn't mean I missed the point what so ever, lol.


----------



## Overclocker2013

Hi all, I just registered to report some observations with my *ALC898* and Windows 7 on a newer AsRock z77 comparing and contrasting it with an *X-Fi Elite Pro* with Windows XP on an older Socket 939 NForce4.

Both systems have played through the same speaker/amp systems. Through either a Logitech z-5500 digital, or a right proper 5.1+ consumer home receiver. All outputs have been used: analog, digital, optical, coax and direct connect (analog). The X-Fi was even used on the Klipsch ProMedia 5.1s for years, long before the ALC898 was possible. All manner of MP3's have been played and EAX 1-2-3-4 and HD has been used in a number of different titles. Every version of Creative's driver suites have been installed, some with unprintable results. I have also used nearly every model of Soundblaster over the years and many other brands as well. I also understand the making of sound in many environments, including inside a mid to full tower PC case. I can sum up my experiences with this simple advice:

Try what hardware you have with the application you want to use it with first and then if you like what you are hearing from your audio sub-system, spare yourself the trouble of changing anything!

If you do _not_ like what you are hearing experiment with alternative solutions and see what changes, if any, you can *discern*. If you can not discern or articulate _why_ system A sounds any different from system B then they aren't really improvements to _you_.

Anecdotally, I find the ALC898 adequate in sound reproduction, which surprisingly isn't the first consideration for your sound sub-system, functionality is. Positional audio and channel separation and equalization are as important sonic factors as total harmonic distortion and then you must include driver functionality and ease of use. Do not underestimate driver functionality, the only way to customize your sound.

In sound sensitive games (even 'old' games) I find the X-fi produces a much cleaner and accurate sound stage. The level of detail ('audio resolution') is noticeably higher even to untrained ears. Not just footsteps behind you, but two uneven footsteps at different elevations, behind you here and _here_. The ALC898 does not provide as detailed an audio experience as an X-fi in positional gaming. Nor does it have the massive bass-headroom of an X-fi. Artillery barrages and the like are a physical experience with properly produced bass and clean channel separation helps with the higher end for fly-bys and other positional elements. The X-fi / Win XP subsytem is superior sounding in almost every application and _connection method_ to the ALC898/ Win 7 system.

Curiously, Creative offers the THX Tru-Studio pro demo applet with AsRock's ALC898. The software is tied to your mobo and appears to be an 'exciter' or somesuch effect and I have yet to find a use for it, in gaming or otherwise, that simply enabling RealTek's DSP driver options does much better. Realtek's driver suite works perfectly with Windows 7 64 and it has numerous effects and post-processing to rival anything Creative offers, even if the GUI is circa Windows 3.11. It's entirely possible that EAX 2 or even 3 will run on the ALC898 and the bought version of TruStudio applies Creative 'witchcraft' to enable higher versions of EAX. As it stands usually enabling EAX on an ALC898, vanilla, causes hanging or other error. Miles positional audio and DirectX hardware accelerated audio work perfectly, as does any OpenAL program. In fact, there are bootleg ALC898 drivers that mimic the X-fi drivers in every way, I tried them and did get them to work partially. It's a great idea but didn't work quite right for me.

Add-in sound cards : on-board audio :: Add-in video cards : on-board video.

Enjoy!


----------



## Stoogie

ive owned most of asus's cards and about 10 cards in general, unless ur running up to $10k+ in external audio equipment, your onboard will sound better than any soundcard(or the same if its a creative chip).. (also tested with audio technica ath-m50's)


----------



## Brutuz

Care to prove that? I noticed the difference between onboard and my Xonar DX on an old pair of Logitech X-530s quite clearly, I can also hear the difference on my ASUS Vulcan ANC headphones, as can various other people. It's not as noticeable going from onboard to the soundcard as it is going from a soundcard back to onboard, but it's there for sure...I know because I've tested and retested this heaps of times.
Then again, some peoples ears are just like that.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stoogie*
> 
> ive owned most of asus's cards and about 10 cards in general, unless ur running up to $10k+ in external audio equipment, your onboard will sound better than any soundcard(or the same if its a creative chip).. (also tested with audio technica ath-m50's)


Wrong. Depends on test methodology. Some differences can be attributed to a number of things, from output impedance, to output equipment positioning and of course things such as the dynamic range of the track.

Many double blind tests have been done that have consistently come that even a cheap Xonar DGX sounds better in a *double blind test* compared to onboard.

It must be double blind so the subject doesn't know what is what and therefore eliminate any kind of cognitive bias.
Also soundcards and DAC chips are designed around the human ability to hear and it's limitations. Massive companies like Asus don't invest lots of dollars into R&D if there is no difference.


----------



## mikeaj

From the way it was described, I don't think what TechReport did was double blind, just single blind. Also, even ignoring issues in setting up the test, it doesn't seem like they did anything remotely formal or ran enough trials for significance.

Anybody actually test the output impedance on a lot of the onboard chipsets? Data sheets say it should be pretty low, but who knows what they're putting external to the chip. A lot of the Asus sound cards and many others just have line outputs that aren't intended for headphones, so if that were worse for headphones (depending on the headphones), I wouldn't be too surprised. Depends. There are obviously many other attributes and factors other than output impedance, but that's one place to start.

Anyway, few people are really doing A/B comparisons with outputs level matched, so you might as well ignore almost everything said regardless...


----------



## Stoogie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi*
> 
> Wrong. Depends on test methodology. Some differences can be attributed to a number of things, from output impedance, to output equipment positioning and of course things such as the dynamic range of the track.
> 
> Many double blind tests have been done that have consistently come that even a cheap Xonar DGX sounds better in a *double blind test* compared to onboard.
> 
> It must be double blind so the subject doesn't know what is what and therefore eliminate any kind of cognitive bias.
> Also soundcards and DAC chips are designed around the human ability to hear and it's limitations. Massive companies like Asus don't invest lots of dollars into R&D if there is no difference.


i tested for months man, with a auzentech x-fi forte, asus xonar dx, asus xonar d2x, auzentech x-meridian 2g. i used logitech z5500's, panasonic sa-ak640 bi-amp bi-wired 2.1 540w hifi, and audio technica ath-m50 headphones, the forte sounds exactly the same as the VIA® VT1828 Onboard (AKM AK4396VF DAC, LME4972 OPAMPS), the x-meridian 2g sounds a little worse, sharper, hurts ears, tinny lower quality sound at default eq, this is because it is also a CMI8788 chip, like the asus's.. The Asus Xonar DX was the worst i have ever heard, really tinny, hurtfull on ears, poor mids, bass non existant, the highs distorted or too loud, tbh it sounded like absolute crap at default eq, the d2x was a bit better but it still sounded the same as the dx except it had a warm tone to it due to the different capacitors it uses, which warm imo is terrible as you want the sound to be true natural sound, not overpowered warm and tubey like them crappy guitar amps u get in highschool for electric acoustics. and not '****/distorted/low quality' like the dx. now here lays the main problem, i spent literally about 10 hours configuring all the sound options, the eq, everything to try and fix the terrible sound these cmi8788 cards put out, nothing i could do could fix it, the eq on the asus xonar dx actually made it sound even worse, i spent $250 on the d2x and sold it after a week of testing cause it sounded terrible. i tested with all the audio equipment i listed above.

i dont see how u can call me wrong, when ive spent all that time testing, and all that money buying all these different sound cards just to find the right one for me that sounds good, im just trying to put out the obvious facts here, the asus cards are only good to be used as a bypass into very expensive audio equipment that then modifies the sound, not to be used flat/raw. as you will get a migraine, u will get terrible sound. now the forte was 1 of my favorite cards however it died cause its a version 1 due to intermittent popping noises due to heat or something.

what im saying is if you plugged your beyerdynamic DT880's into a asus xonar dx on flat default settings, and listened to anything, then plugged in into your onboard, your onboard will sound 'ALOT' better.

the asus xonar dx is the worst sounding sound card i have ever heard

edit: for on the go i have a cowon d2 16gb and a cowon d2+ 32gb, had them for ages , if that means anything to u. sound amazing, lots of adjustable settings, d2+ is my cars 48gb pmp now tho.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stoogie*
> 
> The Asus Xonar DX was the worst i have ever hear, really tinny, hurtfull on ears, poor mids, bass non existant, the highs distorted or too loud, tbh it sounded like absolute crap at default


I have no idea what you tried to do to that DX but my DX has none of that problem...Mine actually has a bit too much bass in my opinion, it's great when I'm home alone but if others are at my house they can clearly hear the bass from my subwoofer, I can also clearly hear the bass drum and bass guitar when I'm listening with any of my headphones from my $20 TDK in-ear earbuds to my $150 ASUS Vulcans.

Mids aren't that bad, never was tinny to me although I do get some small amounts of distortion in cymbal crashes.


----------



## Stoogie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Care to prove that? I noticed the difference between onboard and my Xonar DX on an old pair of Logitech X-530s quite clearly, I can also hear the difference on my ASUS Vulcan ANC headphones, as can various other people. It's not as noticeable going from onboard to the soundcard as it is going from a soundcard back to onboard, but it's there for sure...I know because I've tested and retested this heaps of times.
> Then again, some peoples ears are just like that.


there is no way to prove it unless u stand next to me for 10 hours and listen while i swap out parts and do tests. oh and im also a lead guitarist for 14 years now, if that helps proove that my ears dont fail.

Edit: yes it was mainly the dryness and tinnyness of the sound from the asus xonar dx that made me absolutely hate it

Edit: thats why im holding true to my first post, as with what all my testing has proven, unless u have really expensive external equipment or very high ohm headphones, the xonar will sound ALOT crapper than your onboard or a creative card. even tho i hate creatives ca20k2 chips due to EMI issues, previous northbridge problems, lower quality dacs/opamps, but in reality you cant tell the difference from 0.00015% distortion to 0.001% distortion with 320kbps mp3's and some flac.... so why bother getting a card just for that?


----------



## chinesekiwi

tbh, musicians aren't immune with cognitive bias. No one is. In fact, they might have worse hearing perception wise than a good deal of the population due to hearing loss at loud concerts. All long-time musicans (and Asians with tonal languages) would have is a statistically significant advantage over other people is correct pitch detection.
Cognitive bias has such an effect that even if you don't think you're being bias, you are.

Also IMD is rated at 0.003% in terms of inaudibility and others things affect perception apart from cognitive bias such as output impedance of a device, auditory masking. This is why you do DBT tests, or at the very least, quick AB tests to eliminate bias and things like auditory accommodation (i.e. your ears adjusting to the sound which takes ~10 mins) and memory bias.

Hope all the tests were done with all EQ and DSPs off and also sound volume levels matched to at least 0.3 dB (ideally 0.1 dB) on EVERY card....
Also it's not the opamps / DAC chips that count, it's the circuit implementation. A source with weaker rated opamps and dac chips that's engineered correctly can easily outpreform a source that have high quality parts but poorly implemented (see Sansa Clip / Clip+ / Fuze / Fuze+ / Clip Zip vs. the horrid Hifiman HM-601).

All the Sansa's mentioned use the same parts and circuit implementation albeit sometimes slightly rearranged (but does not affect sound / reproduction of analog signal quality)

and really it goes back to this:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mikeaj*
> 
> Anyway, few people are really doing A/B comparisons with outputs level matched, so you might as well ignore almost everything said regardless...


I'm not doubting you as a person, but unless you've done everything as suggested to avoid bias Stoogie, your testing (and thus perception) is flawed as as stated, everyone is far from immune to cognitive bias, including musicians.


----------



## raclimja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tacoboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *hansen6*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just bought a Xonar DX. Tell me there will be at least the slightest difference.
> 
> 
> 
> The Xonar DX comes with a better DAC (Digital to Analog Converter) then the motherboard. so that's a plus
> But the Xonar DX's (& D1, DS, DSX) ability to drive headphones is not that great.
> The Asus Xonar DGX (or DG) comes with a headphone amplifier, the Xonar DX, D1, DS, DSX. do not.
> But, if all your doing is using the sound card for speakers, then the DX is a good choice.
> You could always add an external headphone amplifier to the Xonar DX, which makes a good combo.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with you about the headphone of sonar dx not being great.

I owned an titanium x-fi hd, fiio e10, galaxy s1(wm8960), sands clip.

I use UE TripleFi 10 and beyerdynamics headphone and I coudnt detect any faults about it. Intact the xonar dx sounded better in music and videos compared to my titanium x-fi hd and fiio e10

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Stoogie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi*
> 
> tbh


true, i know that its more about board layout than the opamps and dacs, i did do the tests with eq flat and everything off at the same volume, i use a sansa clip+ for the gym and love it to bits cause of its flatness and most accurate sound.

so i dont know man, thats just my opinion of the sound difference of the xonar range compared to others, i have had a couple friends using a xonar dg and dgx, i told them that they would get better sound from onboard, and they tried it and they were amazed and thanked me for it.

so what im asking from you is, try your onboard, u will be surprised it may sound alot better. onboard has come a long way nowadays realtek 898+ via vt1828+

EDIT: and my opinion was that my onboard via vt1828 sounds exactly the same as a auzentech x-fi forte 7.1 which i baught for $220 about 3 years ago in AUS, heres a review: http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/auzentech_x_fi_forte_7_1_soundcard_review_|_test,1.html
now why pay more money for a soundcard when it'll sound worse(in this case CMI8788 cards, tho i did have the razer barracuda ac-1 back in the day and that was pretty decent, akm dac too)......

or u could u know like, buy all soundcards and try each one out for yourself(LIKE I DID) and pick the one u like instead of reading forums. if u have over $1000 to blow. (just resell them later on ebay or on forums or locally and lose a little bit of money)


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stoogie*
> 
> there is no way to prove it unless u stand next to me for 10 hours and listen while i swap out parts and do tests. oh and im also a lead guitarist for 14 years now, if that helps proove that my ears dont fail.
> 
> Edit: yes it was mainly the dryness and tinnyness of the sound from the asus xonar dx that made me absolutely hate it
> 
> Edit: thats why im holding true to my first post, as with what all my testing has proven, unless u have really expensive external equipment or very high ohm headphones, the xonar will sound ALOT crapper than your onboard or a creative card. even tho i hate creatives ca20k2 chips due to EMI issues, previous northbridge problems, lower quality dacs/opamps, but in reality you cant tell the difference from 0.00015% distortion to 0.001% distortion with 320kbps mp3's and some flac.... so why bother getting a card just for that?


Put the DX back in, record from a set point in the room, if the sound is as obviously bad as you're saying then you'd be able to tell.
I'm running cheap speakers and cheap headphones and still notice the difference...and get good sound. I have no idea what the hell you did to it but it's clearly PEBKAC or a very bad card. (Also, if we're going to bring music experience into this I've been playing guitar for over 6+ years, bass for 4+, trombone for 7+ and muck around on drums semi-often along with finishing multiple courses on music.)


----------



## Stoogie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Put the DX back in,


Can't i sold it earlier this year sorry, i have also finished all pre-tertiary courses of music in college(pre-university), and im 25 years old now, but i doubt any of that makes a difference here


----------



## Golden Eagles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *logicPwn*
> 
> But yet you own the Beats Pro?


I also wonder how much better is Asus Xonar DGX vs Realtek 892 on my board sound. I set up to my BOSE Home theater system 5.1 (Ten speakers + Sub woofer), Bose head phone, and Beat Head phone. My on board sound card working fine but sometime it output some kind of static noise. I kind off annoying when playing games. So far I think Realtek 892 is more than what I really need for sound except it has static noise that come with my Asus motherboard package. I don't have Asus Xonar sound card yet so can't compare the sound card between those two. My Creative Sound Blaster Live 5.1 SB100 is still working and it sound alright but it won't work with Windows 7 because of the driver problem plus it old. Any advice will be nice....Thanks


----------



## Beatwolf

Also debating whether to get a card or stick with the ALC898 (and integrated headphone amp) on my UD5H for my newly acquired 990 Pro. This is a very interesting thread however, one ends up with the conclusion that its all subjective, much like religion. Which is the conclusion one mainly gets from audiophile debates. But there must be some objective way to determine whether or not on-board sound cards are really good enough for most situatins or whether one should always get a soundcard.


----------



## Jbod

Hi guys. After an enormous argument over this today on another forum I decided to look around to see if what they were saying made any sense (IE - throw your sound card in the bin as onboard is as good as any).

A few months back I bought a Creative Soundblaster XFI Fatal1ty FPS (I know, a real mouthful).

I did so because I wanted better audio quality, assuming the XFI would be better. I couldn't use the card then as my rig went pop due to a bad extension (was wired up incorrectly) but a few days back I bought a PCIE to PCI converter (I upgraded my board after it blew up and my new CHVFZ does not have any PCI) and I can honestly say that software headaches and settings aside (the card clipped like buggery out of the box) the XFI is leagues ahead of my onboard Asus/Realtek thing. I've been told that the only thing the Creative has is loudness, but I just don't agree. I've certainly not set it up to be louder.

Any way I decided to test using Radiohead's The Bends (24 bit FLAC) as well as Citizen Cope's _One lovely day live FLAC._

Now I don't know if the Asus sound card (Supreme FX III apparently but Realtek based, I can't seem to find out which Realtek btw) just has pants drivers or what but the Creative is leagues ahead in the sound stakes. Music is clearer, mid range is less 'muddy' and certain instruments that were overblown or practically non existent are now much more lively and the sound is much clearer (note, not louder, clearer) and more neutral.

TBH I'm finding myself getting very tired of people telling me that the onboard I have is as good as, or sounds the same as, the XFI. It just doesn't.

Now I don't know what the reason for this is, but I do know that they sound completely different and, I prefer the sound that comes out of the XFI by a country mile. And that's nothing to do with any placebo or anything else people keep telling me I've been fooled by, it's just literally that I prefer the sound that comes out of the XFI.

I only paid £26 for the card with the IO box and remote, so this isn't me trying to justify a hideously expensive product that I was fooled into buying.

The way I look at it is like this. Some people like Beats headphones. Me? I tried a set of counterfeits without realising it at first (when I did I got my money back) and I actually thought they were great fun to listen to with stuff like reggae, rap and beat driven dance music. I liked them so much in those categories that I still have them, and whenever I feel like bassing out to _The Chronic_ or some Heavy D I will use them. For opera and classical I like my Monster Puritys (though they do need equalisation as the bass is very weak) and so on.

To me it comes down to taste. Nobody can really dictate to people (at least in any sort of unified logic) what sounds good to them. You could smash me with facts and figures but it would make no difference. I simply prefer the sound that comes out of my XFI to the onboard and nothing could change my mind.

Be good.

Jbod.


----------



## Beatwolf

That board wouldn´t be The Teksyndicate boards would it? they recently had a video up with a guy saying something to the effect of on-board is as good as stand alone sound cards. I definetly notice a difference from my Realtek 898 to the Sonar Essence XT. Not a lot but there is definetly difference there, but still had I payed full price for the Essence XT I wouldn´t say it was worth it. But then again the 898 is one of the best onboard soundcards and the UD5H supposedly has some kind of headphone amp.

It´s all very subjective, but I am suprised not more measurements and things like double-blind tests are available on this and similar topics.


----------

