Winter Audio Reference: On-Board, Consumer, and Pro Solutions
by Derek Wilson on February 3, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mobile
The Anatomy of a Sound Review (User Experience)
The factors included in an end user experience are much more straight-forward than the technical electrical performance of audio hardware. Of course, they are highly interconnected. The listening experience and quality of audio recorded by hardware is a direct result of the electrical capabilities of the hardware as discussed in the previous section. Talking about listening on a qualitative level is very difficult, especially when trying to give others good advice about what to buy. We can sit here and say that: if a device with one set of numbers (dynamic range, THD, etc.) is played on $50000 speakers, it will sound different than a card with worse numbers. What we can't say is how great this difference will be (because the speakers will still likely introduce more distortion).
Random PC speakers are not going to show many differences unless a sound card is essentially broken.
Again, it's difficult to listen to hardware and know what you're hearing. Our approach was to listen to a track over and over and over on one device and then immediately switch to another in order to listen for differences. If there are any, we try to determine what they sounded like, and why they are there.
For high quality audio testing, we used Sony MDR-7509 studio monitors (open air headsets were evaluated, but since we're testing near computers, and henceforth noise, isolation was desirable). For surround and gaming testing, we used Logitech Z-5300 speakers.
This brings us past audio quality and into something that AnandTech readers will be familiar with: performance. We tested how many direct sound channels that we can run (and at what CPU overhead). We will also look at how much of a performance hit it is to enable audio in Unreal Tournament 2004. We had run numbers for Doom 3 as well, but the fact is that there just isn't a performance difference - these newer games are simply too bound in other areas to exhibit any performance difference on different audio cards.
We also need to look at audio API support. As Creative is the mover and shaker in the industry, they bully most companies into using their EAX for audio in some way or another. For example, they forced Id to incorporate EAX into Doom 3 by leveraging John's "Carmack's Reverse" shadowing algorithm against him - Creative holds the patent on depth fail stencil shadows through 3DLabs. Then there's Sensaura, which Creative now also owns. The latest versions of Sensaura include support for EAX 2.0. In our look at Unreal Tournament 2004, we will see performance under software 3D, hardware 3D using OpenAL, and hardware 3D + EAX.
We like the idea that Id has in playing audio straight to surround channels through DirectX. You get better results than using DS3D (or any other 2 channel) positional audio and it's more accurate than upmixing using features like Creative's CMSS 3D. When actually creating true surround sound, the developer has full control, and since Id did it with no performance hit, there's obviously more than enough CPU power to go around these days for doling out audio. Of course, in implementing audio this way, the game developer must give up the comfort of the built APIs and the HRTF (head related transfer functions) that they implement, and build a sound engine to keep track of everything themselves. The major problem of implementing real positional sound then becomes lack of convenience rather than lack of hardware power.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
89 Comments
View All Comments
smn198 - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
For me personally what I would want is reviews of gaming perfomance since I used the SPDIF outputs and my HiFi so they all should so the same. I'd also like to know how much difference there really is between different EAX implementations and if it is true that a new SoundStorm board is coming out. I'm sure you know. Can't you just claim you forgot the NDA? ;)reidc - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
My main reason for a soundcard is transferring analog audio from my Turntable(remember those 12" pieces of vinyl????) to CD- or commonly referred to as "needle-drops". The higher quality DAC's and discrete components the better.When I went from my old SB-Live to turtle Beach Santa Cruz- I recevied a huge boost in quality- the drop in noise was huge.
I'd love to see how the TB SC holds up in this regard compared to the listed products.
Oh- my TB SC is currently not in a PC- as I am just getting the Intel 915 board running in a mchine. I assume by seeing the Intel HD Audio tests- I WILL be putting my Santa Cruz in.
Chris
sandorski - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
Yup, a wider range of cards would be nice.ottodostal - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
I am quit disappointed with this review as there are only so few audio cards there. There are so many of them on the market! You must definitely include M-Audio Revolution 7.1, and some card from Audiotrak Maya + Prodigy series (aka Prodigy 7.1), and Aureon 7.1 Universe or DMX 6fire from Terratec. These are of the major cards on the market and there are missing. You could also include Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, and some card from Hercules.I would also include more mid-range and maybe some even some high-en cards (like those from Aardvark or R M E or MOTU ) generally, do not concentrate on low-end cards like Audigy 2 from Creative. In graphic cards reviews you expect us to pay over 600USD for them, so why to concentrate on value cards in audio tests? BTW if you think that people are not doing such things like playing games on audio cards which cost over 800USD you are wrong :)
You should also include some external USB and Firewire cards like Audiophile USB or FireWire 410 from M-Audio (one of my friends recently brought the Audiophile USB replacing some older Audiotrak Maya and he is quit happy with it. He told that even listening to mp3 files is clearly better).
You must also include latency tests in the review and you should comment on support of main standards lide ASIO and GSIF.
DerekWilson - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
#13, ceefka,if you're refering to not calling Intel HD audio, it can do 24-bit/96kHz ... It just can't record at that bit rate. Playback is no problem. Of course, it's not as high quality as we would expect to see from that many bits per sample at that sampling rate.
#12, S0me1X,
The gina3g uses an external DAC/ADC which is one of the reasons we see a cleaner signal. Of course, the soundblaster uses a /better/ DAC, so we see lower noise and dynamic range even though the signal looks a lil shaky at spots.
external DACs are a very good idea.
Derek Wilson
ceefka - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
Any chance for one of the Terratec soundcards? I heard they're pretty good.My ideal soundcard or onboard solution should be
-96KHz/24-bit DTS/Dobly Surround and any previous standard
-optical and coaxial s/pdif input and output
-perhaps an analogue breakoutbox for simple stereo operation and additional analogue outputs.
With so many DVD-players around (even in cars), there is no need to stay in the 44.1/16 realm. 48/24 already sounds so much better than 44.1/16.
It would be nice to have onboards being taken more seriously by the manufacturers. The leads on a mobo are all quite exposed to everything else going on in there. A few efforts in shielding would probably make a real difference, even without changing the chip. I am not ready to pay for a crappy onboard solution. And don't call it HD unless it can do 96/24.
S0me1X - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
Best way to get quality sound out of a pc is to use an external DAC. I'm using a Benchmark DAC1 that I'm very happy with :)SignalPST - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
I just hope that Creative would fix the 44.1kHz resampling issue and IMD problems with the Sound Blaster Zenith sound cards thats suppose to come out sometime this year.sxr7171 - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
I don't see how the Audigy 4 is so much better than the Audigy 2 to recommend it over the Audigy 2. They are pretty much the same with the Audigy showing weaknesses and one strength in 24/96 D/A conversion. I guess internal computer audio is still not to be taken very seriously except for games (which the reviews sort of hints at).wrecktangle - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link
any chance you could take a look at the m-audio revo 5.1? i've been looking for a review of this card for a long time. even a short update/comparison to the revo 7.1 would be great.on the whole, this review seems alright. kinda short though. definitely touch on recording quality in the future. maybe you could also stretch out the qualitative bit with some more music listening tests of other genres.
is it just me, or are the spectrum plots missing?