Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 128605	2013-01-02 07:20:00	Do you have a sound card in your PC?	FoxyMX (5)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1321094	2013-01-02 19:37:00	There is some great information listed here that I was unaware of. My daughter is wanting me to put together a PC for her and as she has far better ears than I have I was wondering whether she would benefit from a sound card. I think I had one in my very first PC in 1994 but have used onboard sound since so I wouldn't know if that was inferior or not. I can now earn some brownie points for saving her a few coin that she can put towards other bits. Thanks everyone! :thumbs: :cool:	FoxyMX (5)
1321095	2013-01-03 00:13:00	Nope just use the onboard sound. I've got another PCI card, it'll probably be better since its got digital in and out, and SPDIF. But, whether it'll work or not is another matter. Since (I dont think) there are 64 bit drivers for it. If I installed it	Speedy Gonzales (78)
1321096	2013-01-03 02:39:00	The sound in my Asus desk top packed up years ago and I plugged in a USB sound-card, no set up required, just plug in.	mzee (3324)
1321097	2013-01-03 09:45:00	Rather than getting an add-on sound card, you would be better to get some good quality USB headphones or connect your PC to your home theatre system via HDMI. If you care enough about sound quality to need an addon sound card, then you probably have some damn fine audio equipment in your lounge. The catch comes if you have some of the old audio equipment that lasts forever & still sounds amazing - then your motherboard may not have the type of outputs you need.	Greven (91)
1321098	2013-01-03 20:01:00	If you care enough about sound quality to need an addon sound card, then you probably have some damn fine audio equipment in your lounge . Moi? Oh heck no! Apart from an almost 20-year-old "ghetto blaster" and some Logitech PC speakers which don't really count, I don't have a stereo system at all . Not much point when one has a bionic ear that cannot hear the full audio frequency range, including bass . :waughh: My daughter has good ears, however, and I was interested in knowing whether she would need a sound card . Since her stereo is nothing special then onboard sound will do for her as well . Things have obviously changed but it used to be that sound cards were essential as either motherboards did not have onboard sound or it was of such poor quality that even I would want to switch it off . :p	FoxyMX (5)
1321099	2013-01-06 01:53:00	Any Audiophool will require the best sound card including things such as gold plated heatsinks, special audio grade capacitors and a German-engineered hand-made mounting bracket or else the sky will fall. Such sound cards will be better than on board chips of course, but most people won't care or be able to tell the difference. And If you're not running that high end soundcard into a multi-thousand dollar amplifier and speakers, you're wasting your time anyway.	Agent_24 (57)
1321100	2013-01-06 04:18:00	I'm convinced a great many "audiophiles" are actually fooling themselves into believing they can hear things they actually can't or they hear a difference between two types of recordings and label it something like "quantizing distortion" (a real thing but you'll never convince me it can be definitively identified with the human ear and CD quality settings). I read a really good article one time in an audio magazine where an audio engineer analysed the effect of gold plated connectors and oxygen free speaker cables etc. His conclusion, a small but audible decrease in the overall signal loss having the same effect as turning up the volume knob slightly. His comment was louder music tends to sound better so save a few $ and turn up the volume. It's the same with sound cards, whether there's a noticeable difference or not some people will always believe they can hear one and will insist on having that mega expensive gold plated model with insane signal to noise figures. If they can afford it and it makes them happy then good on them, most people are perfectly happy with onboard. A final comment, I have no issue with people who say they prefer the sound of one thing over another (Analogue vs Digital for example or MP3 vs FLAC), that's a personal preference and they are entitled to it. It's when they start trying to convince you that it's a better format/ recording method/ piece of sound hardware/ etc because it's the one they like that I sometimes get annoyed. A record for example may well have the whole original waveform recorded on it as opposed to a CD with a sampled and encoded version that loses a small amount of accuracy but in order to extract that waveform you have to get a very expensive player with a perfect rotational speed and then filter out all the wow and flutter, crackle and pop. You get sound about as good as a $100 CD player using a digital connection to a decent amp, and a record can't match the dynamic range of a CD (no secret which side of the argument I'm on). They do however sound different and people prefer one or the other, that's fine. Sorry ranted more than intended, a fault of mine sometimes (that and wandering of on a tangent).	dugimodo (138)
1321101	2013-01-06 05:51:00	I say once you go FLAC you won't go back. MP3s and other lossy formats are useless in comparison. I have nowhere near audiophile grade equipment and I can say for certain that to my ears, MP3s etc are just junk compared to FLAC and <insert other lossless formats here> (Well, highest quality 320k MP3s are OK... and for silly things like iPods an unfortunate necessity, but I do not like anything lower)	Agent_24 (57)
1321102	2013-01-06 07:17:00	I use WMA lossless myself, quality is the same as FLAC and it works better with media centre. A lot depends on your listening enviroment also, in the car I can't tell the difference between a CD and a 192Kb MP3. At home on the stereo I can maybe detect a slight difference but I'm never sure if it's real or just me hearing what I expect to. FLAC is better than MP3, no argument there. I just included it as an example of preference. I know people who would argue a 128Kb MP3 is just as good as anything else.	dugimodo (138)
1321103	2013-01-06 07:43:00	I use WMA lossless myself, quality is the same as FLAC and it works better with media centre. FLAC is better than MP3, no argument there. I just included it as an example of preference. I know people who would argue a 128Kb MP3 is just as good as anything else. I used to think 128k MP3s were fine. I also used to think Norton Antivirus worked. :waughh: WMA lossless looks good on paper but being a Microsoft and no doubt proprietary\closed format I don't want it. The biggest problem with lossy audio formats even at high bitrates is they are still lossy, and you are paying good money for an inferior and sonically defective item.	Agent_24 (57)
1 2 3