Better sound card for PC?

[[email protected]]

I just have my sound hardware built into my motherboard. If I get a
card like SoundBlaster Audigy 2 or M-Audio Revolution 7.1, is that
going to make my MP3's and CD's sound better? Do they have a much
better DAC than motherboards generally come with?

Is there anyplace you can download high resolution 24 bit 192 khz or 96
khz music on the internet? Any binary newsgroups for that? Have you
guys had any luck making such hi-res recordings from vinyl records? Do
they sound better than mp3's?

Don't you guys think there should be a move towards something better
than the current mp3 technology? I wouldn't mind downloading bigger
files, like say 30 megabytes per song or something like that.

[Laurence Payne]

On 25 Aug 2006 16:48:09 -0700, wrote:

>I just have my sound hardware built into my motherboard. If I get a
>card like SoundBlaster Audigy 2 or M-Audio Revolution 7.1, is that
>going to make my MP3's and CD's sound better? Do they have a much
>better DAC than motherboards generally come with?

Do you particularly need 5.1 or 7.1? You could set your sights a
little higher than domestic/gamers soundcards. Though it won't make
much difference to MP3s :-)

>
>Is there anyplace you can download high resolution 24 bit 192 khz or 96
>khz music on the internet? Any binary newsgroups for that? Have you
>guys had any luck making such hi-res recordings from vinyl records? Do
>they sound better than mp3's?

>Don't you guys think there should be a move towards something better
>than the current mp3 technology? I wouldn't mind downloading bigger
>files, like say 30 megabytes per song or something like that.

So use 16 bit wav files at 44.1KHz. Much better than MP3.

[soundhaspriority]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I just have my sound hardware built into my motherboard. If I get a
> card like SoundBlaster Audigy 2 or M-Audio Revolution 7.1, is that
> going to make my MP3's and CD's sound better? Do they have a much
> better DAC than motherboards generally come with?
>
Yes, much better.

[Gordon Airporte]

wrote:

> Don't you guys think there should be a move towards something better
> than the current mp3 technology? I wouldn't mind downloading bigger
> files, like say 30 megabytes per song or something like that.

The technology is already here - you want FLAC files. FLAC seems to be
the most popular of several lossless audio compression formats.
http://flac.sourceforge.net/
People who trade live concerts tend to use Shorten (.shn) files instead.

[Paul Stamler]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I just have my sound hardware built into my motherboard. If I get a
> card like SoundBlaster Audigy 2 or M-Audio Revolution 7.1, is that
> going to make my MP3's and CD's sound better?

If you wnat better-sounding recordings you really need something better than
those. The M-Audio Audophile 2496 and Audiophile 192 have a good reputation
as entry-level cards; for a bit more money, the various Delta cards are
good.

> Do they have a much
> better DAC than motherboards generally come with?

No in the case of the SoundBlaster, yes in the case of the Audiophile cards.
I don't know about the Revolution, but my guess is it's not as good as the
Audiophile or Delta series. Just guessing, obviously. Oh, the part you
really should care about is the ADC, which converts analog to digital.

> Is there anyplace you can download high resolution 24 bit 192 khz or 96
> khz music on the internet? Any binary newsgroups for that?

Not to my knowledge; too long a download time for most users unless they
have unusually fast connections. It'll probably happen as the overall speed
of the net increases.

> Have you
> guys had any luck making such hi-res recordings from vinyl records?

Yes; it works fine.

> Do
> they sound better than mp3's?

Yes -- a 16-bit 44.1lHz recording sounds better than mp3s on virtually any
program material. I hear a slight improvement on vinyl from 24 bit (I don't
record higher speeds) but not enough to go through the hassle of playing
back from .wav files rather than CDs.

> Don't you guys think there should be a move towards something better
> than the current mp3 technology?

There is something better -- uncompressed data in .wav files, or FLAC, a
lossless-compression algorithm.

> I wouldn't mind downloading bigger
> files, like say 30 megabytes per song or something like that.

As I said, that'll happen when everybody's connection gets faster.

Peace,
Paul

[Emily Railroadstation]

"Gordon Airporte" > wrote in message
. ..
> wrote:
>
>> Don't you guys think there should be a move towards something better
>> than the current mp3 technology? I wouldn't mind downloading bigger
>> files, like say 30 megabytes per song or something like that.
>
> The technology is already here - you want FLAC files. FLAC seems to be the
> most popular of several lossless audio compression formats.
> http://flac.sourceforge.net/
> People who trade live concerts tend to use Shorten (.shn) files instead.

Indeed.

[[email protected]]

Gordon Airporte wrote:
> wrote:
> The technology is already here - you want FLAC files. FLAC seems to be
> the most popular of several lossless audio compression formats.
> http://flac.sourceforge.net/
> People who trade live concerts tend to use Shorten (.shn) files instead.

Sweet! I looked on my newsserver and I found a lot of flac, shn, wav,
and lossless newsgroups. Thanks! I didn't even know those were there
before. Bye bye mp3's!

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I just have my sound hardware built into my motherboard. If I get a
> card like SoundBlaster Audigy 2 or M-Audio Revolution 7.1, is that
> going to make my MP3's and CD's sound better? Do they have a much
> better DAC than motherboards generally come with?

**I dumped my onboard sound for an Audigy. The results are dramatically
(aurally and measurably) better. Whilst there are better cards than the
Audigy, bang for buck is arguably poorer. Arny can probably advise you
better than I can.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> I just have my sound hardware built into my motherboard.

They are not all the same. First, test it yourself using this software:

http://audio.rightmark.org/downloads/rmaa55.exe

The only other hardware you need for the test is a jumper cable with a 3.5
mm stereo plug on each end.

> If I get a card like SoundBlaster Audigy 2 or M-Audio
> Revolution 7.1, is that going to make my MP3's and CD's
> sound better?

Perhaps.

> Do they have a much better DAC than
> motherboards generally come with?

Probably, but is it enough better to make an audible difference?

> Is there anyplace you can download high resolution 24 bit
> 192 khz or 96 khz music on the internet?

Not a lot of it. the 44/16 .wav file format gets the job done, and is often
much better sounding than MP3s. However, a high bitrate well-made MP3 can
sound very good.

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul Stamler" > wrote in message

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> I just have my sound hardware built into my motherboard.
>> If I get a card like SoundBlaster Audigy 2 or M-Audio
>> Revolution 7.1, is that going to make my MP3's and CD's
>> sound better?
>
> If you wnat better-sounding recordings you really need
> something better than those. The M-Audio Audophile 2496
> and Audiophile 192 have a good reputation as entry-level
> cards; for a bit more money, the various Delta cards are
> good.

AFAIK, the Audiophile 24/192 matches or outperforms every other audio
interface that M-Audio sells. The Audiophile branding is a bit of a
misnomer, as it has full balanced I/O and not an RCA jack in sight. Think of
it as a Lynx L22 on a beer budget. ;-)

[DaveW]

The audio chip on a motherboard costs the manufacturer about $5. Yes,
getting a sound card will be a BIG improvement. Might I recommend the
SoundBlaster X-Fi sound cards as being of exceptional fidelity! I use one
of that series to drive my $600 computer system speakers, and LOVE it.

--
DaveW

----------------
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I just have my sound hardware built into my motherboard. If I get a
> card like SoundBlaster Audigy 2 or M-Audio Revolution 7.1, is that
> going to make my MP3's and CD's sound better? Do they have a much
> better DAC than motherboards generally come with?
>
> Is there anyplace you can download high resolution 24 bit 192 khz or 96
> khz music on the internet? Any binary newsgroups for that? Have you
> guys had any luck making such hi-res recordings from vinyl records? Do
> they sound better than mp3's?
>
> Don't you guys think there should be a move towards something better
> than the current mp3 technology? I wouldn't mind downloading bigger
> files, like say 30 megabytes per song or something like that.
>

[Richard Crowley]

"DaveW" wrote ...
> The audio chip on a motherboard costs the manufacturer about $5.

Likely a small fraction of that. But then the audio chip on a
plug-in card is likely the same and doesn't cost any more.

> Yes, getting a sound card will be a BIG improvement. Might I recommend
> the SoundBlaster X-Fi sound cards
> as being of exceptional fidelity!

We don't see that much around here (rec.audio.pro). Actual
recommendations to by "Sound Blaster" products. We are
usually talking to people who are trying to find something better.

> I use one of that series to drive my $600 computer system speakers, and
> LOVE it.

Maybe thats the secret. I don't think many people around
here (r.a.p) have ever heard/seen "$600 computer speakers"
either. :-)

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Richard Crowley wrote:
> "DaveW" wrote ...
>> The audio chip on a motherboard costs the manufacturer about $5.
>
> Likely a small fraction of that. But then the audio chip on a
> plug-in card is likely the same and doesn't cost any more.
>
>> Yes, getting a sound card will be a BIG improvement. Might I recommend
>> the SoundBlaster X-Fi sound cards
>> as being of exceptional fidelity!
>
> We don't see that much around here (rec.audio.pro). Actual
> recommendations to by "Sound Blaster" products. We are
> usually talking to people who are trying to find something better.

So where are the reviews by 'audiophiles' of X-Fi v whatever 'audiophile
card' you guys like?
Or does 'Soundblaster' simply elicit a kneejerk reaction several years old?

--
Dirk

http://www.onetribe.me.uk/ - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:09:31 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> wrote:

>> We don't see that much around here (rec.audio.pro). Actual
>> recommendations to by "Sound Blaster" products. We are
>> usually talking to people who are trying to find something better.
>
>So where are the reviews by 'audiophiles' of X-Fi v whatever 'audiophile
>card' you guys like?
>Or does 'Soundblaster' simply elicit a kneejerk reaction several years old?

No. When the latest model Audigy appeared, publicity suggested that
the frequency-conversion problem might have gone away. Unfortunately,
it hadn't.

This isn't audiophile snake-oil. As long as you forget about the Mic
input, today's on-board 5.1 systems sound pretty good. As do
Soundblasters/Audigy and other domestic cards. If you listen on
plastic computer speakers there's no reason to change. But if you're
the sort of user who e.g. notices a difference from changing speaker
position in the room, you'll notice the difference from the next range
up of sound cards.

[Bob Cain]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:09:31 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
> > wrote:
>
>>> We don't see that much around here (rec.audio.pro). Actual
>>> recommendations to by "Sound Blaster" products. We are
>>> usually talking to people who are trying to find something better.
>> So where are the reviews by 'audiophiles' of X-Fi v whatever 'audiophile
>> card' you guys like?
>> Or does 'Soundblaster' simply elicit a kneejerk reaction several years old?
>
> No. When the latest model Audigy appeared, publicity suggested that
> the frequency-conversion problem might have gone away. Unfortunately,
> it hadn't.

Why is it presumed that the resampling is a problem? It certainly
need not be. What counts is the performance through it and not
whatever goes on inside. Does RightMark show that these latest Audigy
cards are dogs? Does it show any substantial performance difference
between operation at 48 kHz (native) and 44.1 kHZ (resampled)?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Steve House]

High bit-rate mp3s can give you the best of both worlds. 192kbps,
256kps, or 320 kbps can give very good sound without sacrificing all
the file size savings of mp3.

On 25 Aug 2006 16:48:09 -0700, wrote:

....
>
>Don't you guys think there should be a move towards something better
>than the current mp3 technology? I wouldn't mind downloading bigger
>files, like say 30 megabytes per song or something like that.

[Eeyore]

DaveW wrote:

> The audio chip on a motherboard costs the manufacturer about $5.

No way that much !

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore"
> wrote
in message
> DaveW wrote:
>
>> The audio chip on a motherboard costs the manufacturer
>> about $5.
>
> No way that much !

Agreed. Under a $USD