http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aktLRiWXf
qg
new computer
Posted: 3 years ago
Mareg said:You seriously think there is no difference in audio quality between low and top end sound cards? You have got to be fucking joking me. Unlike you I am not playing Hannah Montana out of a pair of Dell desktop speakers. For high quality surround sound stereo output using lossless sound files you need an audio card that can process the signal appropriately. Low end cards lack the ability to decode in formats that will take true advantage of a properly set up system, they also output at lower sample rates, and most do not have high quality I/O. On top of this the drivers for these top end cards offer a huge variety of tweaks that really let you noticeably perfect the sound you are looking for. If you want to argue with me whether or not there is a difference between the $200 and $250 card you might have a case, but what you are saying is that a lower sample rate, analog outputs, and no processing of digital surround sound is comparable..... Also, asking me to find you an empirical study on this is a pretty ridiculous request and a cop-out for a real argument. I have looked into this issue over and over again. I read up on it before buying every single piece of equipment, even down to the wiring. The truth of the matter is that there are too many variables that go into play when setting up a sound system; input source, wiring, processing, speakers, receiver, positioning, etc. You can make whatever claim you like, fact of the matter is that I have personally put the system I own together piece by piece and have noticed significant differences all along the way.
This sounds more like a sales pitch than an argument about sound quality.
There really is not much difference in the quality your going to get if you buy a 200 dollar sound card over a 50 dollar sound card. In fact, I don't even see much of a point of getting a sound card at all anymore since most motherboards already come with great onboard sound, including optical outputs. I personally have put together a great sound system with my onboard sound, and I have also used sound cards as well, but I thought the onboard sound was better in my case because I used the optical output. And to be very honest, I would only tell a very small difference in the sound quality between the optical output and the sound card with none. The main reason I ran the optical was for the fact I could plug it straight into my receiver.
There may be a difference between sound cards on paper, but honestly it is nothing your eats will ever be able to tell the difference of.
Quote
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, it is ok if you just want to spend more money, it is just the jew in you.
Quote
Posted: 3 years ago
Mareg said:Also, asking me to find you an empirical study on this is a pretty ridiculous request and a cop-out for a real argument. I have looked into this issue over and over again. I read up on it before buying every single piece of equipment, even down to the wiring.wat
Quote
Posted: 3 years ago
SEMENROPESCALLYS said:The differences are almost entirely software...
Almost all comp cards are designed to produce a transparent, flat signal. Various equalizers can then be applied, either by software (effects standards like EAX, or even winamp) or by hardware (better).
The overpriced motherboard you are already planning on sporting has the ALC1200 - which supports just about every output format and standard, even 8.1...
I asked you to post an empirical study, because there aren't any. That is my argument. I can't post a lack of them.
What's with the personal attacks?
First off, I've had this comp built and goin for a few months now already. Also, sorry to get a little hostile, was just responding to the ear jokes and buttpie.net headers.
Granted my mobo (which is nowhere near overpriced) does have pretty good onboard sound quality. But I found a ton of sources that warned, for a variety of reasons, against using onboard processing for audio if you are planning on making your computer your primary audio device. I have spent a fairly large amount of time/money on the system I have going, it doesn't make any sense to me to choke the quality at the processing level. Yes the onboard audio still sounds great, but I have tested it vs the audio card and the difference is noticeable. Maybe you don't think the small difference is worth the expense, but music is my biggest form of entertainment and if I am going to build a sound system I am certainly not going to half ass it. $250 for a permanent part of a sound system that will last me for many many years is really not a big cost at all for me.
"I asked you to post an empirical study, because there aren't any. That is my argument. I can't post a lack of them."
A lack of proof is not proof of lack.
Quote
Posted: 3 years ago
DangerousDan said:Mareg said:Also, asking me to find you an empirical study on this is a pretty ridiculous request and a cop-out for a real argument. I have looked into this issue over and over again. I read up on it before buying every single piece of equipment, even down to the wiring.wat
I meant that it is impossible to find an empirical study for this question because its completely unlikely anyone did proper scientific testing with the exact system I have. I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that he was well aware of this, hence it is a cop-out "argument".
Quote
SEMENROPESCALLYS
"robert pattinson look-a-like"
Regular Douchebag (Rank 6)
The differences are almost entirely software...
Quote
Almost all comp cards are designed to produce a transparent, flat signal. Various equalizers can then be applied, either by software (effects standards like EAX, or even winamp) or by hardware (better).
The overpriced motherboard you are already planning on sporting has the ALC1200 - which supports just about every output format and standard, even 8.1...
I asked you to post an empirical study, because there aren't any. That is my argument. I can't post a lack of them.
What's with the personal attacks?