Winter Audio Reference: On-Board, Consumer, and Pro Solutions
by Derek Wilson on February 3, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mobile
Final Words
Intel HD audio quality isn't the highest in the industry for on-board design. This is fine for an average user, but if Intel is pushing on-board audio experience, they should make some enhancements to signal quality. Listening at higher volumes to quiet tracks could sometimes give the hint of a little noise that wasn't supposed to be there. Overall, the listening experience was very good for Intel's solution. And their audio enhancement software by Sonic Focus actually does a good job of delivering on its promises where all other software of a similar sort (that this reviewer has heard) falls short.
The SoundBlaster Audigy 2 isn't the best for straight audio listening. The card has IMD problems at the very often used 16-bit/44.1kHz setting (CD's, MP3's, games), which seems to produce a slight coloration of the audio. This doesn't matter as much (at all?) for movies and games, but for listening to CDs and music files, we would expect better. As a consumer card, where the target is for an entertainment systemm the Audigy 2 offers a good setup, especially when movies and gaming will be a central focus of the machine. For those who wish to dabble in recording, the Audigy 2 is certainly better than an on-board solution and offers 24-bit/96kHz recording of either analog or digital sources.
The Gina3g hits the numbers really well in some cases, but falls short in places where we'd rather see them do better. Our test would have looked better if we had an external balanced device to test against, as our loopback test created a ground loop. Listening to the Gina3g was a very clean experience, although setting up surround is interesting with the configurable ¼ inch outputs, and buying proper converters was interesting. The Gina3g is made more to be a cog in a machine than something to be listened to, but it does very well in a pinch. Of course, if the plan is to listen on the same machine as well as be used in recording, a separate audio card may be desired. The Gina3g can only maintain one sampling rate at a time and will alter all sampling rates to the most recently requested. In other words, if we're recording at 96kHz, and half way through, I double click a 44.1kHz audio track that plays on my Gina3g, half of my recording is going to sound really high pitced and fast when I play it back. This is avoidable if a separate audio card is used for playback while the Gina3g is recording (though, we would still recommend against doing this).
Interestingly, the Audigy 4 is a top performer in our tests, as the improved build quality serve to mask some of the issues that we've seen with the Audigy 2. We would still like to see balanced I/O, and truly reprogrammable sampling rates (to avoid the 44.1kHz resampling issue and IMD problems altogether). But overall, the Audigy 4 Pro is a welcome improvement to the Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro. Not so much that we would recommend upgrading, but if you have to choose between them, we would point in the direction of the Audigy 4.
But that is by no means a conclusion to audio here at AnandTech. The preceding was meant to cut a cross section through PC audio. We've touched on integrated solutions, consumer add-in products, and professional cards. In future audio reviews, we will be using the cards from this review as a reference point for other products in their respective categories. As audio makes a return to the pages of AnandTech, we hope to bring out reviews of products based from the likes of M-Audio, Terratec, EMU, RME, DigiDesign, MOTU, Lynx, C-Media, NVIDIA, Analog Devices, more Realtek, and anything else you can suggest to us. We will also try to include older cards (such as the SB Live! and Turtle Beach cards) for reference in future articles as well.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
PrinceGaz - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
It's good to see soundcards and onboard audio being reviewed again here. The three products you chose were a good start (the Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro and Audigy 4 Pro are so similar that the small differences measured are almost irrelevant, which is no surprise as Creative rarely updates their hardware).I was surprised that high quality extrnal DACs and ADCs hooked up to a reference card with SPDIF connections wasn't used for the RMAA tests, as the way it was done seriously compromises all the results. There's no way to tell how good the output-circuitry and input-circuitry of each card is, and as the input-circuitry is usually the weaker on all but high-end cards, it was probably the main factor in your results. The possibility of a ground-loop also throws a serious question-mark over their accuracy. Retesting all three (or four) cards with high-quality external DACs and ADCs hooked up to a second card is essential for good reference results that can be used with future tests (which must also use the same improved testing methodology).
The CPU utilisation results were more interesting and useful given the above, but why not use RightMark 3DSound to more thoroughly research the issue, rather than just the basic tests offered by RMAA?
Anyway I look forward to more cards being tested (Envy24 based solutions for the low-end certainly) as well as onboard audio. Onboard audio will vary from mobo to mobo so unless every mobo Wesley reviews also undergoes an audio test, the mobo audio testing will only apply to the few select boards chosen (another board using the same audio solution could be much better or worse because the choice and layout of the analogue circuitry is critical).
www.digit-life.com does some very thorough soundcard reviews covering almost every aspect (but unfortunately for only a lmited selection of cards) that are well worth taking a look at.
S0me1X - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
Oh yeah, don't visit head-fi: its evil.SDA - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
Nice article! I'd like to see more cards reviewed, but the fact that the article doesn't compare every single sound card ever made doesn't bother me so long as we'll be seeing more things like this in the future :DSpeaking of the future, I'd agree with #54 and whoever else said it: the E-MU 0404 and 1212m are definitely worth considering in future articles due to their excellent analog (stereo) sound output and wide feature set (well, mainly on the 1212m, but the 0404's not bad for the price). The cheap Chaintech AV-710 may also be worth a look, as its sound quality in "High Quality" mode (stereo only, again.. sigh) is surprisingly good for the price. Also, it has optical out. The Revo 5.1 and 7.1 are, of course, also worth considering.
I'd also say that you might want to try other speakers and headphones out. I'm not saying you should use really expensive high-end stuff, mind.. what I AM saying is that synergy occurs to a surprising degree with sound equipment, and besides, it wouldn't hurt to try out other pieces of gear that might be within the price range of the typical computer hardware enthusiast.
One last thing. I read this article while taking a break from building a power supply that just happened to use an LM1086. Creepy.
S0me1X - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
While the Gina3G has an external DAC, it is doesn't look like it has its own power supply!? It is not a standalone DAC.I meant external DACs like this one
http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/catalog/product_info...
S0me1X - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
Some very good cards for pure music playing are EMU0404 and EMU1212.External dacs can get quite costly, but you get the benefit of isolation from noisy power, and much better analogue output.
I think Benchmark DAC1 is one of the best DACs for use with PC because its very jitter resistant, has fantastic DAC performance, can be used in many different ways (it has a decent built in headphone amplifier, it can be used in a preamp-less speaker system, etc.).
Right now, I'm using a Benchmark DAC1 (toslink input from computer), Sennheiser HD650, Grado RS1, and a Dynahi amplifier (http://www.headamp.com/dynahi.shtml). The DAC1 sounds many magnitudes better than SoundBlaster.
vaystrem - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
I understand people's concerns regarding subjectivity but lets have a go with that for a second. I use relatively high quality headphones with my laptop (Grado SR-225s) and I will be building another desktop system agian son.Something that I have noticed in my experience with audio is that some hardware is more 'fatiguing' than others.
This 'may' to some degree show up in tests, distortion in upper frequencies, poor crosstalk, etc etc. But simply listening to the "source" (the soundcard) for a long period of time with as a previous poster pointed out 'well made' cables (DIY stuff is fantastic if you have the knack, I don't :) and a revealing good quality speaker can reveal this 'subjective' element.
People see to varying degrees, I have poor sight others have very good sight. Some have good night vision, others have comparatively poor vision. Similarily audio sensitivity varies from person to person, and fatigue is important but subjective. Audio fatigue contributes to a negative music & gaming experience.
A brief rant on the 'source first' school of Audio thought. Essentially audiophiles seek information preservation. We want to be able to hear the conductor drop thier baton, the violin tuned improperly, the subtle ebb and flow of underlying melodies. If any of this information is NOT transmitted by the source, the AMP, Cables, Pre-amp, and finally speakers. All contribute to information loss.
The quality of the original information is therefore of the most importance, hence the importance of soundcard/source reviews in general. The other school of thought is that the source doesn't matter 'so much' or that all sources are roughly equal.
As you've demonstrated, already, with the measurements in this small sample of soundcards. There is a variance in the quality of the soundcards and their measurable performance, with some of those differences being audibly different.
So.... all to say. Subjective tests may be of some use. Especially if you begin, as I suspect you will, that soundcards will have a slightly different sonic character. In my own in house review of about 7 different CD players, determining what is different - was not a problem - determining which was BETTER, was.
DerekWilson - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
CSMR is on the right track --though, I will say that we do want to find a balance between the audiophile and the computer enthusiast.
Our goals in reviewing PC audio cards are rooted in our history as a computer hardware site, but we aspire to more than simply spitting out RMAA numbers and benchmarks.
We do want to bring something for the audiophiles and musicians as well, so all feedback is appreciated. As usual, we will strive to bring coverage beyond what other computer hardware sites offer, so you can be sure that we will pay attention to what you guys have to say.
Derek Wilson
CSMR - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
A subjective element to the tests, with better hi-fi equipment, is not appropriate. It is not a competence of AnandTech; the sites you mentioned have much more info and reviewers there have greater experience and expensive equipment; moreover their readers are entirely audio enthusiasts, unlike AnandTech's.For those interested in audio cards, Head-Fi and the audio asylum are good places to go for info.
lsman - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
may be get your hands on those for less noise signal?http://www.kuroutoshikou.com/products/etc/no-pci+....
lsman - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
may be get your hands on those for less noise signal?http://www.kuroutoshikou.com/products/etc/no-pci+....