Noob Needs Help

[17629]

"Is the improvement with 96k/192k easily discernible, or the usual, that is to say, lots of heated disagreement?"

 

Maybe. Results aren't the same for everyone. You have to do some listening for an answer on that.

 

"Is the PS Audio Digital Link III able to take advantage of the hi-res format?"

 

Look in your owners manual. All supported formats should be listed somewhere. You should be able to play at least some hi res formats.

 

"I'd like to have a simple solution, which would be the Xonar...line in, line out, digital out, headphone amp, and all internal. So, I'll probably get that for starters, then build out separates as need and knowledge dictate."

 

All I can say to that is buy a sound card from someone that has a good return polity, and don't sell your dac until you compare both side by side.

[esldude]

Driving home it occurred to me I might answer 17629 in a way that has some interest for the OP. If the OP feels I have derailed his thread then my apologies and let me know. I'll refrain from further discussion in this one thread.

 

Let me start with transducers. Items that convert one form of energy into another. Microphones, loudspeakers, headphones, tape heads, phono cartridges. This tends to be an unruly transition and I wouldn't quibble if someone said every transducer has a sound of its own.

 

Next most unruly are the electronics that must directly interface with transducers. Microphone preamps, phono preamps, tape head amps, and power amps. With good design and care these can be mostly transparent or even fully transparent though such is not inexpensive to do well. These are where electronics sometimes have a sound of their own by design or by compromise. Usually not as much color or character as transducers though some designers have a preferred sound for these that isn’t pure fidelity.

 

In between are all the line level electronics both analog and digital. These have been worked out to a high degree of refinement and even inexpensive gear can be near faultless here. I already know many disagree, but if something has distortion THD and IMD below -100 db, signal to noise below -100db and flat response within .1 db from 20-20khz then it will be audibly transparent. You actually can relax these standards somewhat for most musical purposes.

 

So excellent measurements of transducers can tell one a boatload of information about how it will sound. Not enough to decide without hearing it for oneself as the interactions are too complex. Most electronics that interface with transducers with good complete sets of measurements can illuminate for the most part how they will sound. Yes even to a large degree without hearing them first if you know how they will be loaded or stressed. Though some experience hearing it vs knowing helps. The other digital and line level gear if it measures well enough will not have a sound of its own. And this is born out if you do some listening without knowing what you are listening to beforehand.

 

Without getting into a pi$$ing match with 17629 if he thinks I have never heard, owned or used high quality gear to have such opinions then he is working on an incorrect assumption.

 

In regard to the OP’s issue, yes, the STX II with the measurements it has will be capable of excellent sound quality. If it really never does bleed other noise from the computer’s activities at any high level being a caveat. Reports are it does not have that problem. In regards to driving headphones it looks from measures to be pretty competent though there are some headphone loads that might stress it a bit and be less good than an outboard solution. Still it won’t be terrible with any sane headphone load. Having said all that I don’t know if it will be audibly superior to the PS Audio you have as it was a good piece of gear and still is. Putting the card into your computer and having it handle all these functions for you is quite an advantage. I also didn’t realize your PS Audio has a USB input. Mea culpa!

 

So I see three possibilities.

 

Get the STX and it can feed speakers, headphones and handle ADC duties. It will do these well for you.

 

Use the USB input on the PS Audio and spend the STX money on an external headphone unit. Letting the PS Audio handle speakers and source duties for the headphones. All the playback software being discussed will work with the PS audio as well as the STX. Make do with the ADC built into the MB which probably isn’t bad though not great.

 

Buy one of the outboard $4-500 DAC/Pre/Headphone units that will handle headphones, speakers, but still leave you using built in sound card for any ADC needs you have. These will connect via USB and do fine that way. It may or may not exceed sound quality of the PS Audio, but it is a high quality one box solution to your needs.

 

So does that help you any? Or have I gotten too complex by half?

 

The STX is the simplest and least expensive. Even if you like the PS Audio better once you compare, the STX card will still provide a good headphone solution, good ADC solution and provide a good SPDIF output for the PS Audio along with it having USB.

[sandyk]

Dennis

Add to that, the fact that these Asus Xonar cards are fine for recording at up to 24/192 via Coax SPDIF or Line In, and can also be used for measurement / comparison purposes .

 

Alex

[Jud]

"Is the improvement with 96k/192k easily discernible, or the usual, that is to say, lots of heated disagreement?"

 

Piggybacking on 17629's quotes, as I can't find your original comment.

 

There's a fair amount of disagreement in the abstract, but a good amount of agreement on specific recordings. Some of these are excellent, some are difficult to tell from the CD versions, and some are terrible, quite a bit worse than the CD versions. These variations are due to the quality of the remastering, which is wildly variable from serious people doing archival quality stuff to sad victims of the loudness wars. So the general rule is that there's no general rule. If you want to know about the quality of specific recordings you may be able to find discussions here, or you can just ask.

 

"Is the PS Audio Digital Link III able to take advantage of the hi-res format?"

 

I looked at the manual and it doesn't appear so to me unless I'm missing something.

 

As I recall your original comment, you also asked about hi resolution music sellers. I'm assuming you're located in the US. HDTracks is one of the prominent names, but Pono now at least rivals their inventory or may exceed it, and often beats HDT on price. There's also Acoustic Sounds' "Super HiRez" download site. There are various other hi res sellers, everything from bands' web sites to discs with 24/96 material that you can buy most places (including Amazon) and rip.

[lucretius]

I'm building a new PC based on a Skylake 6700K CPU using an Asus Z170 Motherboard.

My current PC has the following equipment that I was going to transfer to the new setup:

• BlueSky 2.1 Powered Speakers
  
• AKG K701 Headphones w/Heed CanAmp Headphone Amp
  

 

I haven't finalized a decision on what to do about sound. I only need two channel. I'm considering an ASUS Essence STX II 2- channel internal PCI-e card:

https://www.asus.com/us/Essence-Hi-Fi-Audio/Essence_STX_II/

 

I'm also looking into external DAC's because I'm a concerned about electrical interference potentially degrading the sound of an internal card. But I'm unclear on two issues. A lot of DAC's simply have a USB connection, analog out, and maybe digital in. If I go with that solution:

1. how do I get analogue sound into the computer without using the crappy on-board audio?
   
2. internal cards come with software that enable you to manipulate the sound, define sampling rate, equalize, help with speaker placement, sound profiles, define DSP mode, etc. I may be wrong, but it seems that most simple DAC's don't come with any software at all, which seems quite limiting. What am I missing...do people use third party software...do people care?
   

 

Any insight would be most helpful. Many thanks.

 

I don't like the bloated software that comes with sound cards like the one you quoted. I much prefer a sound card like the Juli@xte -- the software is much more stable, less bloated. You can connect your headphone amp to the card. In addition, the recording quality of the Juli@xte (i.e. a 24-bit/192kHz ADC converter with 114dB(a) dynamic range) will easily trump the Asus card -- but the card has only line level input -- you would need a preamp for anything that is not line level.

[17629]

You talk in circles. How can anyone use the info you provide? If you think you answered my question, you're mistaken. I asked you to give one specific example of looking at specs and using them as a means to show how the component will sound. You haven't done that.

 

"With good design and care these can be mostly transparent or even fully transparent though such is not inexpensive to do well. These are where electronics sometimes have a sound of their own by design or by compromise. Usually not as much color or character as transducers though some designers have a preferred sound for these that isn’t pure fidelity."

 

You have no way judging how transparent a component is. Every component has a sound of its own. How do measure color or character and then put it in context with the original event?

 

"In regard to the OP’s issue, yes, the STX II with the measurements it has will be capable of excellent sound quality."

 

There's no way you can explain that either. What's excellent sound quality? I hate the metal tweeters that go in B&W speakers. Other people love them. If you don't explain why something sounds good or bad, the term is useless. Its beyond subjective.

 

"In between are all the line level electronics both analog and digital. These have been worked out to a high degree of refinement and even inexpensive gear can be near faultless here."

 

Refinement and faultless can mean just about anything.

 

"You actually can relax these standards somewhat for most musical purposes."

 

Musical purposes? You have to be kidding. In case your not, show me one specific example of a designer relaxing standards for musical purposes.

 

"Most electronics that interface with transducers with good complete sets of measurements can illuminate for the most part how they will sound. Yes even to a large degree without hearing them first if you know how they will be loaded or stressed."

 

In real life, I can sit you down and have you listen to 3 different dacs with very similar specs and have all 3 sound very different from each other.

 

I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you back and forth. Here's a partial list of some of the qualities that you can't measure. Imaging, timing, height, depth, timbre, resolution. All of those things are extremely important, and you're not dealing with any of them. Of course you'll say those qualities are subjective. They are. But they're not as subjective as "excellent sound, musical purposes, flawless and refinement. Also, you do recommend some actual listening. But you're not giving it anywhere near as much importance as needed. If you want to build the best possible system, its not going to happen unless you do a great deal of listening. So given all this, I stand by my statement that you have a long way to go with your learning. Having some expensive equipment doesn't mean you're not an amateur. Anyone can spend money. I've built and/or upgraded well over a thousand systems at all price levels. I know what it takes to do the job right.

 

From here on, why don't we just leave the matter as it stands. If you agree with the points I make, fine. If not, that's OK too.

[esldude]

You talk in circles. How can anyone use the info you provide? If you think you answered my question, you're mistaken. I asked you to give one specific example of looking at specs and using them as a means to show how the component will sound. You haven't done that.

 

An easy one. Output impedance of a tube amp and the impedance of the speaker will inform about FR changes which will create a sound difference. You just asked for one here. So there is one. Same can be said on the other end with cartridges and how they are loaded including capacitance of the wire. There is now two examples.

 

"With good design and care these can be mostly transparent or even fully transparent though such is not inexpensive to do well. These are where electronics sometimes have a sound of their own by design or by compromise. Usually not as much color or character as transducers though some designers have a preferred sound for these that isn’t pure fidelity."

 

You have no way judging how transparent a component is. Every component has a sound of its own. How do measure color or character and then put it in context with the original event?

 

By placing a component in the chain and removing it. See what audible changes occur. Or even measured changes that are enough to be audible. With transducers it is messier and less clear. With everything else not so difficult

 

"In regard to the OP’s issue, yes, the STX II with the measurements it has will be capable of excellent sound quality."

 

There's no way you can explain that either. What's excellent sound quality? I hate the metal tweeters that go in B&W speakers. Other people love them. If you don't explain why something sounds good or bad, the term is useless. Its beyond subjective.

 

I refer to excellent sound quality as high fidelity sound quality. If you wish to use preference then anything goes.

 

"In between are all the line level electronics both analog and digital. These have been worked out to a high degree of refinement and even inexpensive gear can be near faultless here."

 

Refinement and faultless can mean just about anything.

 

Refinement means over years the distortions have been reduced and the electrical capabilities expanded. It doesn't mean just about anything. Faultless means you can't hear it change the sound you hear. That it doesn't breakdown under the conditions of use.

 

"You actually can relax these standards somewhat for most musical purposes."

 

Musical purposes? You have to be kidding. In case your not, show me one specific example of a designer relaxing standards for musical purposes.

 

Vacuum tube gear. Some preferred sound qualities have resulted in using tube power amps that have restricted bandwidth at higher power with more distortion, and some designers preferred that to wider bandwidth lower distortion. You can tell it has a sound of its own. When you have designers designing for subjective sound quality and altering the design away from high fidelity toward a preferred sound this is often what happens.

 

"Most electronics that interface with transducers with good complete sets of measurements can illuminate for the most part how they will sound. Yes even to a large degree without hearing them first if you know how they will be loaded or stressed."

 

In real life, I can sit you down and have you listen to 3 different dacs with very similar specs and have all 3 sound very different from each other.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Depends upon what those specs are. I have posted sample files of DACs with very different specs that apparently don't sound much different when you can't see the label. When people see labels, read prosaic design goals, and are told about superior parts quality that is often as much of the difference they hear as actual changes in the sound itself.

 

I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you back and forth. Here's a partial list of some of the qualities that you can't measure. Imaging, timing, height, depth, timbre, resolution. All of those things are extremely important, and you're not dealing with any of them. Of course you'll say those qualities are subjective. They are. But they're not as subjective as "excellent sound, musical purposes, flawless and refinement. Also, you do recommend some actual listening. But you're not giving it anywhere near as much importance as needed. If you want to build the best possible system, its not going to happen unless you do a great deal of listening. So given all this, I stand by my statement that you have a long way to go with your learning. Having some expensive equipment doesn't mean you're not an amateur. Anyone can spend money. I've built and/or upgraded well over a thousand systems at all price levels. I know what it takes to do the job right.

 

Good. I won't bother about the allegedly unmeasurable qualities you list above.

 

From here on, why don't we just leave the matter as it stands. If you agree with the points I make, fine. If not, that's OK too.

 

That is up to you. I do not agree with much of anything you wrote in this post. I also told you I was an amateur so why that is an issue with you I don't know. I haven't listed every audio activity I ever took part in as that would be ridiculous. If you have built/upgraded well over a thousand systems that is quite a number if you actually had much engagement with it. Let us guess you have done this for 30 years and 1300 is well over a thousand. You would be knocking out another system about every 8 days over that entire time. Sounds more like you are taking a cookie cutter approach or perhaps are an audio salesman or dealer. Perhaps you could tell us what your procedure for system building is and how you go about it. If you know what it takes to get good sound and do so every 8 days that is a methodology that might be informative to lots of people who read here on CA.

[17629]

"An easy one. Output impedance of a tube amp and the impedance of the speaker will inform about FR changes which will create a sound difference. You just asked for one here. So there is one. Same can be said on the other end with cartridges and how they are loaded including capacitance of the wire. There is now two examples."

 

There's 2 what? Doesn't answer my question.

 

I'll refresh your memory?

 

"You talk in circles. How can anyone use the info you provide? If you think you answered my question, you're mistaken. I asked you to give one specific example of looking at specs and using them as a means to show how the component will sound. You haven't done that."

 

"By placing a component in the chain and removing it. See what audible changes occur. Or even measured changes that are enough to be audible. With transducers it is messier and less clear. With everything else not so difficult"

 

Doesn't answer my question. It does, however, make my point that you need to listen to determine. Thank you for finally being honest.

 

"I refer to excellent sound quality as high fidelity sound quality. If you wish to use preference then anything goes. "

 

Doesn't answer my question, and you can't define it in any meaningful way.

 

"Refinement means over years the distortions have been reduced and the electrical capabilities expanded. It doesn't mean just about anything. Faultless means you can't hear it change the sound you hear. That it doesn't breakdown under the conditions of use."

 

Doesn't answer my question and you don't show how you can use them in relation to my question.

 

"Vacuum tube gear. Some preferred sound qualities have resulted in using tube power amps that have restricted bandwidth at higher power with more distortion, and some designers preferred that to wider bandwidth lower distortion. You can tell it has a sound of its own. When you have designers designing for subjective sound quality and altering the design away from high fidelity toward a preferred sound this is often what happens."

 

Back it up with some proof and some specific examples. All gear has a sound of its own.

 

"Maybe, maybe not. Depends upon what those specs are. I have posted sample files of DACs with very different specs that apparently don't sound much different when you can't see the label. When people see labels, read prosaic design goals, and are told about superior parts quality that is often as much of the difference they hear as actual changes in the sound itself."

 

Doesn't answer my question and its just a guess on your part.

 

"Good. I won't bother about the allegedly unmeasurable qualities you list above."

 

I'm still waiting to hear about the measurable ones that you "talk about".

 

As for the last paragraph, you're just guessing. I don't want to wear out the copy and paste function on my PC.

 

By the way, are you ever going to get around to answering my question? I was kind of hoping you would.

[Jud]

"An easy one. Output impedance of a tube amp and the impedance of the speaker will inform about FR changes which will create a sound difference. You just asked for one here. So there is one. Same can be said on the other end with cartridges and how they are loaded including capacitance of the wire. There is now two examples."

 

There's 2 what? Doesn't answer my question.

 

I'll refresh your memory?

 

"You talk in circles. How can anyone use the info you provide? If you think you answered my question, you're mistaken. I asked you to give one specific example of looking at specs and using them as a means to show how the component will sound. You haven't done that."

 

"By placing a component in the chain and removing it. See what audible changes occur. Or even measured changes that are enough to be audible. With transducers it is messier and less clear. With everything else not so difficult"

 

Doesn't answer my question. It does, however, make my point that you need to listen to determine. Thank you for finally being honest.

 

"I refer to excellent sound quality as high fidelity sound quality. If you wish to use preference then anything goes. "

 

Doesn't answer my question, and you can't define it in any meaningful way.

 

"Refinement means over years the distortions have been reduced and the electrical capabilities expanded. It doesn't mean just about anything. Faultless means you can't hear it change the sound you hear. That it doesn't breakdown under the conditions of use."

 

Doesn't answer my question and you don't show how you can use them in relation to my question.

 

"Vacuum tube gear. Some preferred sound qualities have resulted in using tube power amps that have restricted bandwidth at higher power with more distortion, and some designers preferred that to wider bandwidth lower distortion. You can tell it has a sound of its own. When you have designers designing for subjective sound quality and altering the design away from high fidelity toward a preferred sound this is often what happens."

 

Back it up with some proof and some specific examples. All gear has a sound of its own.

 

"Maybe, maybe not. Depends upon what those specs are. I have posted sample files of DACs with very different specs that apparently don't sound much different when you can't see the label. When people see labels, read prosaic design goals, and are told about superior parts quality that is often as much of the difference they hear as actual changes in the sound itself."

 

Doesn't answer my question and its just a guess on your part.

 

"Good. I won't bother about the allegedly unmeasurable qualities you list above."

 

I'm still waiting to hear about the measurable ones that you "talk about".

 

As for the last paragraph, you're just guessing. I don't want to wear out the copy and paste function on my PC.

 

By the way, are you ever going to get around to answering my question? I was kind of hoping you would.

 

Are you actually here to learn/teach/discuss anything about audio, or do you prefer to indulge in meaningless repetitive rhetoric? You've had your question about what mere specs can show us about the sound of a system answered at least three times (twice by Dennis, once by me), so why you feel the need to repeat "Doesn't answer my question" as some sort of catchphrase I'm not sure. But this is not the part of your comment I want to talk about.

 

It may surprise you that I tend to agree more with what I take to be your general sentiment (there's some significant part of what sounds to us like live performance that isn't expressed in currently popular specs, measurements and tests) than with Dennis's position. But you're far too general, at least if what you say is what you believe and not rhetorical exaggeration, and consequently you leave on the table exciting opportunities for sound quality improvement.

 

Let's look at your list:

Imaging, height - A large part of this is phase. Have you listened to Roger Waters' "Amused to Death"? The sound moves around the room due to "QSound," which is basically fancy phase effects. The sound moves in very precise ways. So this isn't some unknown art, it works in accordance with known principles. If you have room dimensions, listening position, speaker dimensions and locations, then such things as apparent soundstage height can be figured pretty exactly if you know the phase aspects of the signal and speakers.

 

Timing, depth - How a system will present timing can also be evaluated on the basis of engineering principles. What the filters in DACs (or software) and speaker crossovers do to the timing of a signal is well understood, and is (or should be) part of the design process for those components. For example, minimum phase filters are usually characterized by something called "dispersion," or "group delay," which means how quickly a signal moves through the filter depends on frequency. This gives the illusion of depth, particularly with instruments that have great range, like the piano. Now my particular system incorporates speakers that are time and phase correct, so minimum phase filters in DACs or software players tend to mess up timing and imaging. Therefore I know to steer clear of those filters and DACs for my own system. Ayre, for example, uses minimum phase filtering as its preferred filter. I own and like Pono, which uses a version of that filter, but I use that with headphones or in the car, not hooked up to my speakers. Software to equalize room response also tends to use minimum phase filters, so this would likely not be a good solution for me; physical changes would likely work better. So this sort of knowledge comes in handy in deciding what components or software to integrate into your system.

 

Timbre - To some extent timbre will have to be unmeasurable, since its definition is basically "everything that makes one sound different from another, other than base frequency (pitch) and loudness (intensity)." But many aspects of timbre have been measured in numerous laboratory experiments and the results published in academic journals, and these are quite interesting. For example, there's the presentation of harmonics. How accurately do your electronics and speakers present not only base frequencies but harmonics? What are the noise measurements of your components, since harmonics will be very low level compared to the fundamental, and you don't want those blocked by noise? Also included in timbre are the attack-sustain-decay-release envelope of the sound (most people have no idea how critical this is even to such basic aspects of audio as telling one instrument from another completely different instrument - there's been some very entertaining experimental work on this), which brings into play transient response and again, noise (you want to be able to hear microdynamics). Some of the usual measurements are very helpful, though there are also tests that not everyone performs (e.g., response to tone clusters) which could be interesting and helpful, but aren't usually available.

 

Resolution - I imagine you're referring to detail and ability to hear clearly what's being presented. That makes this a sort of catch-all category, where performance in the other areas we've already discussed will obviously affect your perception of how well you can hear what's in the recording. Typical measurements can be helpful here: there's of course noise again, transient response, and even frequency response - does the system have a tipped-up frequency response that provides an artificial sense of detail, or is it really giving you accurately the detail that's in the recording?

[davide256]

I'm building a new PC based on a Skylake 6700K CPU using an Asus Z170 Motherboard.

My current PC has the following equipment that I was going to transfer to the new setup:

• BlueSky 2.1 Powered Speakers
  
• AKG K701 Headphones w/Heed CanAmp Headphone Amp
  

 

I haven't finalized a decision on what to do about sound. I only need two channel. I'm considering an ASUS Essence STX II 2- channel internal PCI-e card:

https://www.asus.com/us/Essence-Hi-Fi-Audio/Essence_STX_II/

 

I'm also looking into external DAC's because I'm a concerned about electrical interference potentially degrading the sound of an internal card. But I'm unclear on two issues. A lot of DAC's simply have a USB connection, analog out, and maybe digital in. If I go with that solution:

1. how do I get analogue sound into the computer without using the crappy on-board audio?
   
2. internal cards come with software that enable you to manipulate the sound, define sampling rate, equalize, help with speaker placement, sound profiles, define DSP mode, etc. I may be wrong, but it seems that most simple DAC's don't come with any software at all, which seems quite limiting. What am I missing...do people use third party software...do people care?
   

 

Any insight would be most helpful. Many thanks.

 

I regret the day I wasted my money on an Asus Essence (snore). An iFi Nano is a far better sounding choice, and an even better one if you buy a Wireworld starlight USB cable + add a REGEN later. Allows you to do headphones or RCA out.

[davide256]

I missed that you want to record analog in to your PC... that discussion is probably better addressed on a musicians web site. You may want to check out sweetwater.com for options. Lynx audio products are what I see most commonly discussed by recording enthusiasts but they aren't cheap.

[17629]

"Are you actually here to learn/teach/discuss anything about audio, or do you prefer to indulge in meaningless repetitive rhetoric? You've had your question about what mere specs can show us about the sound of a system answered at least three times (twice by Dennis, once by me), so why you feel the need to repeat "Doesn't answer my question" as some sort of catchphrase I'm not sure. But this is not the part of your comment I want to talk about."

 

The first part about indulging in meaningless repetitive rhetoric, yes. I'm doing it for a reason. The OP is someone new to audio and its hard to get right when people throw out all these crazy theories that they clearly can't back up in any way. But he sounds believable. Sure, if you look at the specs on a certain sound card you can determine that you'll get excellent sound? Really? I'm sorry, but if you can't define what excellent sound is, what good is it? Its meaningless. What sounds good to me, may be horrible to you. Audio is full of these kinds of conflicts. Everyone likes something different. Just read through these threads for limitless examples.

 

What good will it do to fill the OP's head with a bunch of specs and ways of judging audio components that won't do him any good outside of an internet chat room? How many times do we hear how high res is a scam? This product doesn't do what they say? That product doesn't do what they claim? We hear this on a daily basis. Why send another person out to fail? That's my opinion and I make no apologies for it.

 

You said Dennis answered my question. If he did, I honestly didn't see it. Or yours. But your very last post is interesting. I have to go over it later when I have more time. Unlike some of the other posters, I think it would be great if you prove me wrong. If you guys knew how many mistakes I made to get to the level I'm at now, you probably wouldn't believe it.

[esldude]

"Are you actually here to learn/teach/discuss anything about audio, or do you prefer to indulge in meaningless repetitive rhetoric? You've had your question about what mere specs can show us about the sound of a system answered at least three times (twice by Dennis, once by me), so why you feel the need to repeat "Doesn't answer my question" as some sort of catchphrase I'm not sure. But this is not the part of your comment I want to talk about."

 

The first part about indulging in meaningless repetitive rhetoric, yes. I'm doing it for a reason. The OP is someone new to audio and its hard to get right when people throw out all these crazy theories that they clearly can't back up in any way. But he sounds believable. Sure, if you look at the specs on a certain sound card you can determine that you'll get excellent sound? Really? I'm sorry, but if you can't define what excellent sound is, what good is it? Its meaningless. What sounds good to me, may be horrible to you. Audio is full of these kinds of conflicts. Everyone likes something different. Just read through these threads for limitless examples.

 

What good will it do to fill the OP's head with a bunch of specs and ways of judging audio components that won't do him any good outside of an internet chat room? How many times do we hear how high res is a scam? This product doesn't do what they say? That product doesn't do what they claim? We hear this on a daily basis. Why send another person out to fail? That's my opinion and I make no apologies for it.

 

You said Dennis answered my question. If he did, I honestly didn't see it. Or yours. But your very last post is interesting. I have to go over it later when I have more time. Unlike some of the other posters, I think it would be great if you prove me wrong. If you guys knew how many mistakes I made to get to the level I'm at now, you probably wouldn't believe it.

 

I wasn't going to bother responding, but since reading this post I will at least partly.

 

Anything with distortion below -100db, noise below -100db and with flat response to 20 khz will sound very good. Even if there are some residual differences they are very darned small. Yes, even a lowly PCIe sound card if it can do those specs and Stereophile provided independent measures saying it exceeds everything I list above other than FR which is more or less meets. Yes, it really will sound very good. No as the OP is new to this I didn't give all the technical why's a wherefore's. Just the bottom line, that yes the Soundcard could do well for him.

 

Now if you disagree you'll have to do more than tell me you have heard them and no sound card is good and only external DACs can be good sound.

 

Now for your one more example. I remind you I grant that transducers are unruly, complex and each sounds different to the point you have to hear it yourself to have more than a very broad idea of what it sounds like. I'll use an example from a speaker I once owned, a Quad ESL-63. Once you have made your speaker choice what can measurements say about how something sounds? The Quad had a low impedance in the upper octave, and over 32 ohms in the lowest octave it would produce. Along with phase shift it being nothing like a resistive load. A high current, low output impedance amp, like say a Spectral DMA 50 wouldn't interact with that to much alter the base response of the speaker. A triode vacuum tube amp with maybe 1.5 ohms output impedance will react with it significantly. Model it without hearing it and you find (also corroborated with measurements) it will give a 1.5-2 db boost over the lowest 1.5 octaves with an uneven slope to -3 db in the upper octave vs the Spectral. It also will sound like that. Warmer, bigger, easier on harsh material and the uneven ups and downs in the midrange will give a bit more apparent depth. As it happened to be in a portion of the frequency range that pushes items forward while just above it seeming to push hall sounds and space in the background a bit. So in that system, I could have looked at the specs for the tube amp and given a good account of what it sounds like. There is a bit more to it than just that, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

"Its meaningless. What sounds good to me, may be horrible to you. Audio is full of these kinds of conflicts. Everyone likes something different. Just read through these threads for limitless examples."

 

And here an important comment by you. My reference is high fidelity accuracy. You need it as a base from which to work even if it isn't your preference. Once you get into preference anything goes. Yet you previously claimed to know what 'good sound' is from your experience. Given your above statement you shouldn't make that claim. 'Good sound' to you is not necessarily the case for everyone. Nor is there some magic by which an over-achieving sound card is automatically incapable of either good sound or high fidelity. At the level of the sound card or DAC my experience and philosophy is to keep it clean, high fidelity and transparent. If you want coloration to taste, do it elsewhere with DSP or other gear like maybe a tube headphone amp/preamp. Or by choosing a different transducer more to your liking in its inherent character so you need less massaging to get the sound you prefer.

 

You previously said every DAC sounds different. They do if you listened to them sighted. You will find those differences are not so obvious unsighted and level matched. There is no particular magic there in my opinion and according to how things work electronically. This isn't some supposition of mine from my imaginations of what happens. Nor for a distaste or hate for real high end gear. Nor am I someone who needs to insist cheap stuff is just as good as the big boy items because I don't want to spend the money.

 

If you want to discuss something rather than disagree pedantically and rhetorically then contribute something of your own or ask more specific questions. I asked how you go about picking out well more than 1000 systems. You haven't responded yet at all. Yet you seem intent on my responding to you.

[jaydub]

I don't like the bloated software that comes with sound cards like the one you quoted. I much prefer a sound card like the Juli@xte -- the software is much more stable, less bloated. You can connect your headphone amp to the card. In addition, the recording quality of the Juli@xte (i.e. a 24-bit/192kHz ADC converter with 114dB(a) dynamic range) will easily trump the Asus card -- but the card has only line level input -- you would need a preamp for anything that is not line level.

 

That card may make a lot of sense. With the Heed Canamp headphone amp ($500), I really don't need a top flight headphone section. Also, it has S/PDIF in and Midi in/out, which the Asus doesn't have. Interesting connectivity, being able to change from phono to rca by reversing the card.

- What I'm not quite sure about is whether or not this card is set up to accommodate L/R stereo or single channel inputs (mic's, instruments, etc).

- You say line level only....wouldn't that apply to the Asus as well?

- What makes you come to the conclusion that sound quality is better than the Asus, given that the Asus also has 24-bit/192kHz?

Specs for Asus are:

Analog Playback Sample Rate and Resolution :

44.1K/48K/96K/192KHz @ 16bit/24bit

Analog Recording Sample Rate and Resolution :

44.1K/48K/96K/192KHz @ 16bit/24bit

S/PDIF Digital Output :

44.1K/48K/96K/192KHz @ 16bit/24bit

ASIO Driver Support :

44.1K/48K/88.2K/96K/176.4K/192KHz @ 16bit/24bit

[lucretius]

That card may make a lot of sense. With the Heed Canamp headphone amp ($500), I really don't need a top flight headphone section. Also, it has S/PDIF in and Midi in/out, which the Asus doesn't have. Interesting connectivity, being able to change from phono to rca by reversing the card.

- What I'm not quite sure about is whether or not this card is set up to accommodate L/R stereo or single channel inputs (mic's, instruments, etc).

- You say line level only....wouldn't that apply to the Asus as well?

- What makes you come to the conclusion that sound quality is better than the Asus, given that the Asus also has 24-bit/192kHz?

Specs for Asus are:

Analog Playback Sample Rate and Resolution :

44.1K/48K/96K/192KHz @ 16bit/24bit

Analog Recording Sample Rate and Resolution :

44.1K/48K/96K/192KHz @ 16bit/24bit

S/PDIF Digital Output :

44.1K/48K/96K/192KHz @ 16bit/24bit

ASIO Driver Support :

44.1K/48K/88.2K/96K/176.4K/192KHz @ 16bit/24bit

 

Re Juli@xte: The analog "left" and "right" channels (both ins and outs) are separated - 2 rca jacks; therefore you can use them as single channel.

 

Yes, on the Asus, the "in" is line-level only -- one jack for 6.3mm (1/4") phone plug.

 

Actually, I was wrong about the SQ -- the specs of the ASUS are a little better than the Juli@XTE (i.e. higher SNR) and most people who have the ASUS card say it's sounds great. However, I have a beef with the quality of ASUS software and drivers and the lack of support from ASUS -- just check with other users to make sure any kinks have been ironed out. OTH, the driver (asio) for the Juli@XTE is very robust and the card is supported by various musicians' software. As well, unlike the ASUS card, the Juli@xte card does not require a 4-pin Molex connection to power the card and the Julie@xte will work with Mac's OS X.

[sandyk]

Re Juli@xte: The analog "left" and "right" channels (both ins and outs) are separated - 2 rca jacks; therefore you can use them as single channel.

 

Yes, on the Asus, the "in" is line-level only -- one jack for 6.3mm (1/4") phone plug.

 

Actually, I was wrong about the SQ -- the specs of the ASUS are a little better than the Juli@XTE (i.e. higher SNR) and most people who have the ASUS card say it's sounds great. However, I have a beef with the quality of ASUS software and drivers and the lack of support from ASUS -- just check with other users to make sure any kinks have been ironed out. OTH, the driver (asio) for the Juli@XTE is very robust and the card is supported by various musicians' software. As well, unlike the ASUS card, the Juli@xte card does not require a 4-pin Molex connection to power the card and the Julie@xte will work with Mac's OS X.

 

Separating the power feeds to the Asus card with the mini 4 pin molex plug permits cleaner power than that available directly from the motherboard. The more recent Asus cards are slanted more to a higher quality Analogue Out using a TCXO etc, but unlike earlier cards such as my Asus Xonar D2X and a friend's earlier Essence card, no longer have a digital input.

This may however be still available on some of the far more expensive versions. The recent cards are far more slimmed down too, and probably to remain price competitive, other features are now absent.

[Jud]

Re Juli@xte: The analog "left" and "right" channels (both ins and outs) are separated - 2 rca jacks; therefore you can use them as single channel.

 

Yes, on the Asus, the "in" is line-level only -- one jack for 6.3mm (1/4") phone plug.

 

Actually, I was wrong about the SQ -- the specs of the ASUS are a little better than the Juli@XTE (i.e. higher SNR) and most people who have the ASUS card say it's sounds great. However, I have a beef with the quality of ASUS software and drivers and the lack of support from ASUS -- just check with other users to make sure any kinks have been ironed out. OTH, the driver (asio) for the Juli@XTE is very robust and the card is supported by various musicians' software. As well, unlike the ASUS card, the Juli@xte card does not require a 4-pin Molex connection to power the card and the Julie@xte will work with Mac's OS X.

 

I owned and very much liked the Juli@, but sold it because one of the operating systems I run (FreeBSD) didn't have a good driver for it at the time.

[17629]

""Its meaningless. What sounds good to me, may be horrible to you. Audio is full of these kinds of conflicts. Everyone likes something different. Just read through these threads for limitless examples."

 

And here an important comment by you. My reference is high fidelity accuracy. You need it as a base from which to work even if it isn't your preference. Once you get into preference anything goes. Yet you previously claimed to know what 'good sound' is from your experience. Given your above statement you shouldn't make that claim. 'Good sound' to you is not necessarily the case for everyone. Nor is there some magic by which an over-achieving sound card is automatically incapable of either good sound or high fidelity. At the level of the sound card or DAC my experience and philosophy is to keep it clean, high fidelity and transparent. If you want coloration to taste, do it elsewhere with DSP or other gear like maybe a tube headphone amp/preamp. Or by choosing a different transducer more to your liking in its inherent character so you need less massaging to get the sound you prefer."

 

Just a couple of things regarding this. No one has been able to show me what high fidelity accuracy is. Its the old saying if you weren't present for the original event, you can't know what accuracy is. Its not a saying I'm very fond of, but there is some truth to it. I'm also not saying anything goes either. If you want to put a system together, its best to set some clearly defined goals, and work towards them. Some people need to have a flat frequency response. Some like imaging and spacial placement. I'm crazy when it comes to high frequencies. Other areas can slip a little, but if the highs aren't just right (for me), I can't listen. Some are just the opposite and bass is the most important factor. There's endless combinations, and if you don't build a system that you want to listen to, you won't listen to it.

 

"Yet you previously claimed to know what 'good sound' is from your experience. Given your above statement you shouldn't make that claim. 'Good sound' to you is not necessarily the case for everyone."

 

I have to make that claim. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't true. The only point I need to change is that I don't mean good sound is always a term that I always define. Don't think for a second that I liked every system I ever built. Its far from it. If you ask me to put a system together for you, you have to like it. I don't.

 

One last thing I should mention about specs is that I think, at times, we mean different things. In some of your comments, it looks like you are comparing specs on different products to make sure they'll work together. Things like, "Will this amp drive this speaker?". I take that as a given. When I say tell me how a component sounds from looking at specs, I mean qualities like imaging, timbre, timing, etc... Up to this point, I have to listen. I don't know of any other way to judge these qualities.

[Jud]

Thanks to 17629 for a further interesting post on the relationship between specs and sound. May I suggest in order to talk more about this while being considerate of the OP, you start a new thread on this specific topic?

[jaydub]

I've done A/B tests comparing my Auzentech Meridian digital out > Digital Link III > Heed Canamp > K701's with redbook CD as the source vs. the same but using the Meridian analog out and bypassing the outboard DAC. It's very difficult for me to tell the difference. I'm not sure that it matters, but I just took a hearing test on the internet and I cannot hear anything above 13kHz (not a complete surprise...I'm 59 and have listened to my share of loud music). So for me perhaps this is all academic!!

 

The Digital Link III has USB/coaxial and upsamples everything to 24-bit 96 or 192 (except USB is limited to 96). What are the features / technologies / advancements that have been made since 2008 that would be absent on my III?

[17629]

Thanks to 17629 for a further interesting post on the relationship between specs and sound. May I suggest in order to talk more about this while being considerate of the OP, you start a new thread on this specific topic?

 

I don't think we went off topic. The name of this thread is "Noob Needs Help". Why not expose the OP to heated discussions like we have here? Regardless of what he decides to do, there's a lot to be learned here.

[YashN]

Vacuum tube gear. Some preferred sound qualities have resulted in using tube power amps that have restricted bandwidth at higher power with more distortion, and some designers preferred that to wider bandwidth lower distortion. You can tell it has a sound of its own. When you have designers designing for subjective sound quality and altering the design away from high fidelity toward a preferred sound this is often what happens.

 

That's a very limited understanding of what tube amps can do or how they can be designed for audiophile uses.

[esldude]

That's a very limited understanding of what tube amps can do or how they can be designed for audiophile uses.

 

Not limited understanding. It is an experience of how the great majority of them are designed. I know that isn't the only way they can work. They can be made to be excellent transparent amps, but usually aren't.

[esldude]

""Its meaningless. What sounds good to me, may be horrible to you. Audio is full of these kinds of conflicts. Everyone likes something different. Just read through these threads for limitless examples."

 

And here an important comment by you. My reference is high fidelity accuracy. You need it as a base from which to work even if it isn't your preference. Once you get into preference anything goes. Yet you previously claimed to know what 'good sound' is from your experience. Given your above statement you shouldn't make that claim. 'Good sound' to you is not necessarily the case for everyone. Nor is there some magic by which an over-achieving sound card is automatically incapable of either good sound or high fidelity. At the level of the sound card or DAC my experience and philosophy is to keep it clean, high fidelity and transparent. If you want coloration to taste, do it elsewhere with DSP or other gear like maybe a tube headphone amp/preamp. Or by choosing a different transducer more to your liking in its inherent character so you need less massaging to get the sound you prefer."

 

Just a couple of things regarding this. No one has been able to show me what high fidelity accuracy is. Its the old saying if you weren't present for the original event, you can't know what accuracy is. Its not a saying I'm very fond of, but there is some truth to it. I'm also not saying anything goes either. If you want to put a system together, its best to set some clearly defined goals, and work towards them. Some people need to have a flat frequency response. Some like imaging and spacial placement. I'm crazy when it comes to high frequencies. Other areas can slip a little, but if the highs aren't just right (for me), I can't listen. Some are just the opposite and bass is the most important factor. There's endless combinations, and if you don't build a system that you want to listen to, you won't listen to it.

 

"Yet you previously claimed to know what 'good sound' is from your experience. Given your above statement you shouldn't make that claim. 'Good sound' to you is not necessarily the case for everyone."

 

I have to make that claim. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't true. The only point I need to change is that I don't mean good sound is always a term that I always define. Don't think for a second that I liked every system I ever built. Its far from it. If you ask me to put a system together for you, you have to like it. I don't.

 

One last thing I should mention about specs is that I think, at times, we mean different things. In some of your comments, it looks like you are comparing specs on different products to make sure they'll work together. Things like, "Will this amp drive this speaker?". I take that as a given. When I say tell me how a component sounds from looking at specs, I mean qualities like imaging, timbre, timing, etc... Up to this point, I have to listen. I don't know of any other way to judge these qualities.

 

Again please learn to quote more clearly.

 

Just a couple of things regarding this. No one has been able to show me what high fidelity accuracy is.

 

You just aren't paying attention. High fidelity means what comes out one end sounds like the input end. Yes, in the ultimate scheme of things being at the recording and hearing what the mics picked up helps. And that has been done whether everyone can do it or not. You keep ignoring that some of this gear can be inserted in a chain of gear and removed. If you can't tell whether it is in or out, then it is high fidelity to the input. END OF THE FIDELITY STORY>

 

All the rest of your comment regarding good sound indicates you still haven't gotten the difference in fidelity and preference. Two different things. One is possible to determine, one is determined by each individual's bias and preference as they can only be subjectively defined. Subjective judgements of sound quality contrary to popular belief and marketing do not always hew toward higher fidelity. That is okay, the confusion about it is where trouble starts.

 

You go on to talk about some needing flat FR, or timbre or imaging etc. None of it matters. If you can manage transparent fidelity all of that is correct. If you want something else, emphasized imaging, emphasized timber, non-flat, but pleasing FR, then you have moved into preference and anything goes.

[esldude]

I've done A/B tests comparing my Auzentech Meridian digital out > Digital Link III > Heed Canamp > K701's with redbook CD as the source vs. the same but using the Meridian analog out and bypassing the outboard DAC. It's very difficult for me to tell the difference. I'm not sure that it matters, but I just took a hearing test on the internet and I cannot hear anything above 13kHz (not a complete surprise...I'm 59 and have listened to my share of loud music). So for me perhaps this is all academic!!

 

The Digital Link III has USB/coaxial and upsamples everything to 24-bit 96 or 192 (except USB is limited to 96). What are the features / technologies / advancements that have been made since 2008 that would be absent on my III?

 

Mainly the ability to play 96 and 192 natively without upsampling or other processing. I never understood why PS audio did this either. The chip obviously can do up to 192khz. Why did they hamstring it with lower rate inputs that get upsampled? Cost saving measure? Wasn't a performance advantage.

 

On the other hand I am not convinced the extra bandwidth of higher sample rates gain you anything audible.