# Sound Card vs Onboard



## Bacon

I'm not very sound savvy and I'm wondering what benefits there are to a dedicated sound card vs an onboard sound. Is there really any noticeable difference? Does it improve sound quality? I'm at a total loss here as I really have no idea what a sound card does..


----------



## Shane

Well on newer motherboards the Intergrated sound tends to be quite good,I had Realtec HD 5.1 on my motherboard that i used and was good but decided i wanted a dedicated card so i purchased the X-fi and i was amazed by the results.

Things sound much more clear,louder.

This is what i got,cheap and 7.1 capable 


http://www.ebuyer.com/product/121761


----------



## massahwahl

I didn't think I would notice a lot of difference, but on my HTPC I picked up a sound blaster audigy 2 and it is an incredible difference! That's the only one I can vouche for but I suppose it depends on the quality of the onboard sound.


----------



## Bacon

Nevakonaza said:


> Well on newer motherboards the Intergrated sound tends to be quite good,I had Realtec HD 5.1 on my motherboard that i used and was good but decided i wanted a dedicated card so i purchased the X-fi and i was amazed by the results.
> 
> Things sound much more clear,louder.
> 
> This is what i got,cheap and 7.1 capable
> 
> 
> http://www.ebuyer.com/product/121761



See I was confused because I was seeing people say that sound cards didn't really improve sound quality which I was completely baffled by..if it doesn't improve sound quality then wtf do they do?!

Anyways, I'm planning on getting a z-5500 and I was almost positive that my motherboards onboard sound would hold it back from its true potential.. Also assuming I wouldn't really hear much of a difference between that card than the higher end cards unless the source of the sound was high quality, which would be mainly movies.. Am I right or am I just making myself look like an idiot?


----------



## massahwahl

With good speakers you WILL notice a difference. I have the creative labs 6.1 inspire speakers and it is night and day difference.


----------



## fmw

The only way to test for a difference in sound quality is to do a bias controlled A/B comparison.  That is very hard to do.  Simply putting in a sound card and saying "Ah, that sounds better" is very meaningless.  No level matching.  No bias control.  It is simply hearing better sound because you expect to hear better sound.  We call it the placebo effect.  I've done over 10 years of bias controlled listening tests.  I can tell you that modern DAC's all "sound" the same.  They simply do.  It isn't opinion.  It's test results.

An ouboard sound card is likely to provide more features and more connectivity but, unfortunately, no improvement in sound quality.  I've tested on board DAC's against professional level DAC's costing 1000's of dollars.  No difference in sonics.  Other differences to be sure but not a sonic difference with digital music playback.

I can prove what I say if you want to come here to get the demo or pay me to travel somewhere else to do it.  The cheaper approach is simply to buy a sound card and convince yourself it's better.


----------



## Zatharus

fmw said:


> The only way to test for a difference in sound quality is to do a bias controlled A/B comparison.  That is very hard to do.  Simply putting in a sound card and saying "Ah, that sounds better" is very meaningless.  No level matching.  No bias control.  It is simply hearing better sound because you expect to hear better sound.  We call it the placebo effect.  I've done over 10 years of bias controlled listening tests.  I can tell you that modern DAC's all "sound" the same.  They simply do.  It isn't opinion.  It's test results.
> 
> An ouboard sound card is likely to provide more features and more connectivity but, unfortunately, no improvement in sound quality.  I've tested on board DAC's against professional level DAC's costing 1000's of dollars.  No difference in sonics.  Other differences to be sure but not a sonic difference with digital music playback.
> 
> I can prove what I say if you want to come here to get the demo or pay me to travel somewhere else to do it.  The cheaper approach is simply to buy a sound card and convince yourself it's better.



I beg to differ.  D/A converters can vary greatly greatly in quality of analog output depending on type.  There are still quite a few different forms of DAC in use that are considered "modern".  What types of analysis/tests have you done?


One benefit of a sound card over the on-board audio chipset that is often overlooked is the extra EMI noise that can be generated by the surrounding chipsets.  A PCI card is less affected by this than an IC soldered to the motherboard.  Granted, digital output will eliminate this.


----------



## Zatharus

Bacon said:


> See I was confused because I was seeing people say that sound cards didn't really improve sound quality which I was completely baffled by..if it doesn't improve sound quality then wtf do they do?!
> 
> Anyways, I'm planning on getting a z-5500 and I was almost positive that my motherboards onboard sound would hold it back from its true potential.. Also assuming I wouldn't really hear much of a difference between that card than the higher end cards unless the source of the sound was high quality, which would be mainly movies.. Am I right or am I just making myself look like an idiot?



Most higher-end sound cards will offer more processing horsepower and the ability to play back more audio channels/voices simultaneously than on-board audio.  In doing so, an audio card can reduce the CPUs workload even more than the on board chipset can.

You are not alone Bacon.  80-90% of listeners do not hear or cannot quantify the subtle differences between different grades of audio gear.  This is one reason why many people think 128Kb MP3s sound as good as CDs.  *shudder*


----------



## Bacon

Zatharus said:


> Most higher-end sound cards will offer more processing horsepower and the ability to play back more audio channels/voices simultaneously than on-board audio.  In doing so, an audio card can reduce the CPUs workload even more than the on board chipset can.
> 
> You are not alone Bacon.  80-90% of listeners do not hear or cannot quantify the subtle differences between different grades of audio gear.  This is one reason why many people think 128Kb MP3s sound as good as CDs.  *shudder*



Awesome, thanks for the info. 

Oh and what about 192kb? Its what the radio i listen to uses.


----------



## Zatharus

Bacon said:


> Awesome, thanks for the info.
> 
> Oh and what about 192kb? Its what the radio i listen to uses.



Are you asking about the quality of that stream compared to CD audio?  If so, than that bitrate is still nowhere near the quality of a CD's uncompressed PCM bitstream - even if it is a 192kb AAC encoding.  MP3, AAC, Ogg, and WMA (to name a few) are all lossy compression schemes that work off of pychoacoustic prinicples to trim down the audio in ways you are less likely to notice.  But...they are and will always be just approximations of the actual audio stream.  The higher the bitrate, the closer to the original and the less distorted the compressed stream will be.

Technically digital audio by its nature is an approximation of the analog waveform that we would naturally hear.


----------



## Bodaggit23

I've never used a sound card. Always used onboard.

Am I missing out? lol


----------



## Zatharus

Bodaggit23 said:


> I've never used a sound card. Always used onboard.
> 
> Am I missing out? lol



Not necessarily.  For most people, the on-board audio in today's systems is adequate.  I have not bothered with a separate sound card for several years now for regular computer use (gaming, light music listening).  For the rest of my audio needs I have more specialized equipment.  

Also, since Vista came out, some of the advantages of having a sound card went out the window...this is slooooowly being remedied, but from the looks of it, things will never be the same.


----------



## Bacon

Zatharus said:


> Also, since Vista came out, some of the advantages of having a sound card went out the window...this is slooooowly being remedied, but from the looks of it, things will never be the same.



How so?


----------



## Zatharus

Vista heralded the inevitable death of Directsound - this is actually a good thing in some respects.  It switched over to the more favorable open standard, but at the time less feature laden, OpenAL.  For example, drivers to enable EAX processing via OpenAL have been around for a while, but you will not get hardware mixing yet.  It is the hardware mixing that gives the separate audio cards a leg up over most integrated systems.  In a sense, Vista crippled this advantage.  It isn't gone completely, however, and on modern systems, you really won't notice the difference in CPU usage.


----------



## realmike15

fmw said:


> The only way to test for a difference in sound quality is to do a bias controlled A/B comparison.  That is very hard to do.  Simply putting in a sound card and saying "Ah, that sounds better" is very meaningless.  No level matching.  No bias control.  It is simply hearing better sound because you expect to hear better sound.  We call it the placebo effect.  I've done over 10 years of bias controlled listening tests.  I can tell you that modern DAC's all "sound" the same.  They simply do.  It isn't opinion.  It's test results.
> 
> An ouboard sound card is likely to provide more features and more connectivity but, unfortunately, no improvement in sound quality.  I've tested on board DAC's against professional level DAC's costing 1000's of dollars.  No difference in sonics.  Other differences to be sure but not a sonic difference with digital music playback.
> 
> I can prove what I say if you want to come here to get the demo or pay me to travel somewhere else to do it.  The cheaper approach is simply to buy a sound card and convince yourself it's better.



your generalizing a bit much here.  as was mentioned before, ADACs can make a big difference.  i will agree that onboard sound is better than it was 3 years ago, but there are high-end PCI cards that will improve results.

i'll probably take some heat for this from X-Fi owners, but creative cards are not very good.  they color the sound and give you a false sense of improved fidelity.  a quality ADAC should try to make the conversation from digital to analog as seemless as possible and remain transparent from one end to the other.  this is the main reason creative isn't used in the recording world, despite the fact that creative tries to market their cards as recording capable.  you simply cannot reference material, if the source material is altered from point a to point b... it's misleading.

m-audio probably makes the most widely available quality sound card out there, selling at $99.  
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16829121120

echo is another company, i believe they have a small line of PCI cards without the external recording I/O attached.

you won't find much shopping on newegg, you're better off shopping at websites dedicated to Pro Audio... like SweetWater
http://www.sweetwater.com/c703--PCI_Audio_Interfaces


----------



## fmw

Zatharus said:


> I beg to differ.  D/A converters can vary greatly greatly in quality of analog output depending on type.  There are still quite a few different forms of DAC in use that are considered "modern".  What types of analysis/tests have you done?
> 
> 
> One benefit of a sound card over the on-board audio chipset that is often overlooked is the extra EMI noise that can be generated by the surrounding chipsets.  A PCI card is less affected by this than an IC soldered to the motherboard.  Granted, digital output will eliminate this.



Your position is the popular one but, unfortunately, it is incorrect.  All modern DAC's (those manufactured after the late 1980's) produce virtually the same waveforms regardless of the internal code with which they operate.  By virtually the same I mean audibly the same.  We've done bias controlled tests with panels of up 12 listeners.  We've tested scores of 16 bit, 24 bit and 1 bit DAC's and found zero audible difference between any of the modern ones.  We've compared DAC's in portable CD players to DAC's in $4000 outboard high end audio converters.  We've tested pro gear and amateur gear.  The technology has been perfected for almost 20 years.

As long as the amplifer used to drive the speakers is clean and up to the task without distortion, changing DAC's won't make any difference to the quality of the sound.  It simply won't.  One can hope it does or believe it does or convince oneself it does but, unfortunately, it doesn't.  I'm VERY confident in saying that.  Do some reading about placebo affect and hearing bias.  You may find it interesting.  It is very true and it affects all of us - me, you everybody.

So in order for an external or PCI mounted sound card to sound better, it takes more than a difference in DAC's.  Below is an image of the "sound card" I use for live recording.  It sounds exactly the same for audio playback as the on-board sound on the computer with which I use it.  That is no surprise to me, obviously.


----------



## Zatharus

fmw said:


> Your position is the popular one but, unfortunately, it is incorrect.  All modern DAC's (those manufactured after the late 1980's) produce virtually the same waveforms regardless of the internal code with which they operate.  By virtually the same I mean audibly the same.  We've done bias controlled tests with panels of up 12 listeners.  We've tested scores of 16 bit, 24 bit and 1 bit DAC's and found zero audible difference between any of the modern ones.  We've compared DAC's in portable CD players to DAC's in $4000 outboard high end audio converters.  We've tested pro gear and amateur gear.  The technology has been perfected for almost 20 years.
> 
> As long as the amplifer used to drive the speakers is clean and up to the task without distortion, changing DAC's won't make any difference to the quality of the sound. It simply won't. One can hope it does or believe it does or convince oneself it does but, unfortunately, it doesn't. I'm VERY confident in saying that. Do some reading about placebo affect and hearing bias. You may find it interesting. It is very true and it affects all of us - me, you everybody.



Ah, I see where we differ.  Yes, to an untrained ear, they will sound virtually the same.  But, you have pretty much stated my intended point.  There is a difference in the waveform.  Virtually the same does not equal "the same." You can't possibly believe that a straight 16 bit DAC (playing back 16bit material) will produce the same waveform or even the same quality of output of a 24 bit DAC (playing back 24bit material).  The noise floor alone is an obvious difference.  Sure, if you play back 16bit material through simple PWM 16bit and 24bit DACs they will sound very similar.  But, play back 24/32bit material through a 16 or 24 bit DAC and you will be able to measure a difference between the two.

I do agree that the converters have gotten better and that the DAC is not the only part that affects the quality of a digital output.  If you have a horrible clock driving it, the best DAC in the world will sound awful.  

I do not agree that the technology has been perfected.  How can you call a technology that "closely approximates" a contiguous analog source (within a limited range) perfect?


----------



## Zatharus

mightymilk said:


> i'll probably take some heat for this from X-Fi owners, but creative cards are not very good.  they color the sound and give you a false sense of improved fidelity.  a quality ADAC should try to make the conversation from digital to analog as seemless as possible and remain transparent from one end to the other.  this is the main reason creative isn't used in the recording world, despite the fact that creative tries to market their cards as recording capable.  you simply cannot reference material, if the source material is altered from point a to point b... it's misleading.



Very good point.  Creative took some flack for their Audigy cards for this.  The X-Fi's have gotten a bit better.  They work without up-sampling everything to 48KHz to work with it before down-sampling the audio to output it at 44.1KHz (if you were set to 44.1KHz output) as the Audigy's did.  Very poor design...very poor.  Creative was duly slapped for this horriffic sample rate finagaling.

The M-Audio audiophile cards are very nice and make a dencent entry into recording as well.  If you are looking for a more traditional "PC Soundcard", you may also want to look at the Turtle Beach Montego or AuzenTech audio cards.  I should note: The later AuzenTech cards now use the Creative X-Fi chip.


----------



## fmw

Zatharus said:


> Ah, I see where we differ.  Yes, to an untrained ear, they will sound virtually the same.  But, you have pretty much stated my intended point.  There is a difference in the waveform.  Virtually the same does not equal "the same." You can't possibly believe that a straight 16 bit DAC (playing back 16bit material) will produce the same waveform or even the same quality of output of a 24 bit DAC (playing back 24bit material).  The noise floor alone is an obvious difference.  Sure, if you play back 16bit material through simple PWM 16bit and 24bit DACs they will sound very similar.  But, play back 24/32bit material through a 16 or 24 bit DAC and you will be able to measure a difference between the two.



Yes but not hear a difference.  That is my point.



> I do agree that the converters have gotten better and that the DAC is not the only part that affects the quality of a digital output.  If you have a horrible clock driving it, the best DAC in the world will sound awful.



We haven't encountered any horrible clocks.  We've measured clock jitter but never encountered the slightest bit of audible change caused by it.  Remember clock jitter is measured in PICO seconds.  Meaningless to the ear.



> I do not agree that the technology has been perfected.  How can you call a technology that "closely approximates" a contiguous analog source (within a limited range) perfect?



It is perfect in terms of audibility.  Modern DAC's all produce waveforms that sound the same on playback.   Those waveforms sound the same as the analog waveforms that were originally digitized if compared in bias controlled, level matched listening tests. As far as our hearing is concerned, that's perfect.

While a 24 bit DAC playing back audio that was digitized at 24 bits will have a lower noise floor, 16 bit digital audio still has an inaudible noise floor so it doesn't really matter much.  The lower noise floor is measured but not heard.

Don't confuse measurable differences with audible differences.  All audible differences are measurable but not all measurable differences are audible.  I've only been talking about audible differences.  I have a lot expertise at this.  I really have done years worth of testing using proper scientific method.  I promise I'm not kidding you.


----------



## Geoff

Bodaggit23 said:


> I've never used a sound card. Always used onboard.
> 
> Am I missing out? lol


Depends.  I needed a dedicated, high-end card because my onboard could not produce 5.1 sound via optical out, only stereo.  I so like some of the neat features the X-Fi offers for headphones though, such as CMSS-3D.


----------



## Zatharus

fmw said:


> Yes but not hear a difference.  That is my point.
> 
> We haven't encountered any horrible clocks. We've measured clock jitter but never encountered the slightest bit of audible change caused by it. Remember clock jitter is measured in PICO seconds. Meaningless to the ear.



Those statements speak volumes of our professional differences.  I have taught for years, and it has been my experience, that 80-90% of the human populace cannot tell the specific difference between varying audio qualities, but many can tell that there is some difference.  They just can't quantify it.  

Clock jitter does have a significant impact on what you hear.  Granted, at very low levels, most people will not hear it (or care about it).  Some people will. Those pico-seconds can make a noticeable difference to some.  The human auditory system is surprisingly complex for how limited it is compared to some of the animal kingdom.  Stereo imaging, for one, can be greatly affected by extremely slight differences in timing.  Proper frequency reproduction is another example.  Considering this to be due to just a placebo effect is not accurate.

I agree with mightymilk here in that you are generalizing too much. 




> While a 24 bit DAC playing back audio that was digitized at 24 bits will have a lower noise floor, 16 bit digital audio still has an inaudible noise floor so it doesn't really matter much. The lower noise floor is measured but not heard.


Doesn't matter much?  Come now...you must be joking? 

If you involve dithering you can lower the perceived noise floor significantly in some instances.  But, with dithering out of the equation, the difference between true 16bit and 24bit signals is rather large.




> Don't confuse measurable differences with audible differences. All audible differences are measurable but not all measurable differences are audible. I've only been talking about audible differences. I have a lot expertise at this. I really have done years worth of testing using proper scientific method. I promise I'm not kidding you.


I believe that you are not trying to kid me.  I also agree whole-heartedly that not all measurable differences are audible.  That has not been my point.

It does sound like you have some experience in this field.  I do not intend to get into a "who's better" contest.  I am not sure who in this case would have more experience overall.  This has been my profession for years, and your statements thus far tell me that your understanding of digital audio theory is incomplete.




			
				[-0MEGA-];1227783 said:
			
		

> Depends.  I needed a dedicated, high-end card because my onboard could not produce 5.1 sound via optical out, only stereo.  I so like some of the neat features the X-Fi offers for headphones though, such as CMSS-3D.



Very good point.  I have enjoyed the Dolby Live function on my on-board audio for simple surround to a theater system, but many on-board systems do not have this.  The CMSS-3D processing can also provide a novel, wider semi-surround audio field which can be useful in games.


----------



## fmw

"Doesn't matter much? Come now...you must be joking? 

If you involve dithering you can lower the perceived noise floor significantly in some instances. But, with dithering out of the equation, the difference between true 16bit and 24bit signals is rather large."

Large? How would you quantify that?  Would you agree that the noise floor in a 16 bit recording is well over 100 db down and that makes it inaudible?  If not, then tell me where the point of audibility begins.  In our tests most people can't hear a 70db noise floor.  I can't tell you the hours we've spent comparing 24 bit and 16 bit audio.  No difference in audibility.  Not even a little. 

You continue to argue from the point of view of graphs and measurements and I'm arguing from a perspective of audibility.  Until you resolve that you won't be able to accept what I'm saying.  I understand what you're saying and it is correct in terms of measurements.  It is not correct in terms of audibility.

We've tested these things with scores and scores of listeners.  "Hearing acuity" - if such a thing exists - doesn't factor in.  We've even tested that with a borrowed audiological testing system used by the local hospital.

I'm tired of this one. After of 12 or 13 years of arguing with people who haven't done the tests, I've learned to tire quickly of it.  No sense in going on.  One day perhaps you will do some bias controlled tests yourself and then you'll better understand what I'm talking about.  I can prove what I say and have done so time and time again much to the amazement of audio designers and engineers who have contributed to our tests.   If you think buying a different DAC will improve your sound, then help yourself.


----------



## PunterCam

fmw said:


> The only way to test for a difference in sound quality is to do a bias controlled A/B comparison.  That is very hard to do.  Simply putting in a sound card and saying "Ah, that sounds better" is very meaningless.  No level matching.  No bias control.  It is simply hearing better sound because you expect to hear better sound.  We call it the placebo effect.  I've done over 10 years of bias controlled listening tests.  I can tell you that modern DAC's all "sound" the same.  They simply do.  It isn't opinion.  It's test results.
> 
> An ouboard sound card is likely to provide more features and more connectivity but, unfortunately, no improvement in sound quality.  I've tested on board DAC's against professional level DAC's costing 1000's of dollars.  No difference in sonics.  Other differences to be sure but not a sonic difference with digital music playback.
> 
> I can prove what I say if you want to come here to get the demo or pay me to travel somewhere else to do it.  The cheaper approach is simply to buy a sound card and convince yourself it's better.



The statement about DACs is not true. It's these converters that make all the difference - it's the only reason high end digital equipment even exists. I've been running a digital/analogue setup of Protools and an old Neve mixing desk for a few years now, using the digidesign 192 interfaces. Recently, in an attempt the save money, I got hold of some SSL interfaces (which are half the price but half the sample rate (96k vs 192k). Using two mac pros, running the same session and sample rate but with the different hardware I compared them side by side. The difference was noticeable - my 12 year old brother picked out the 192s as 'better'. 

DACs are the only part of a digital setup that _can_ make a difference to the sound. Digital is digital; it is what it is. Making the conversion is everything. 

In relation to Bacon's question - all you need is a digital output. I would wager the z5500s DACs are better than the onboards.


----------



## fmw

PunterCam said:


> The statement about DACs is not true. It's these converters that make all the difference - it's the only reason high end digital equipment even exists. I've been running a digital/analogue setup of Protools and an old Neve mixing desk for a few years now, using the digidesign 192 interfaces. Recently, in an attempt the save money, I got hold of some SSL interfaces (which are half the price but half the sample rate (96k vs 192k). Using two mac pros, running the same session and sample rate but with the different hardware I compared them side by side. The difference was noticeable - my 12 year old brother picked out the 192s as 'better'.
> 
> DACs are the only part of a digital setup that _can_ make a difference to the sound. Digital is digital; it is what it is. Making the conversion is everything.
> 
> In relation to Bacon's question - all you need is a digital output. I would wager the z5500s DACs are better than the onboards.



I see.  And you have some test results to back that up?  Did your 12 year old brother undergo a bias controlled, level matched comparison?  Of course not.  If that were the case, he wouldn't have heard any difference.  It amazes me how human arrogance refuses to understand how bias affects hearing.  I've been doing this for years and people make claims about what they can and can't hear and continue to do so even after having been proven wrong.  I've had test subjects say they had a bad day or they drank too much coffee or that the tests weren't valid for one reason or another.  It has amazed me for years.  I won't even get into why "high end" audio equipment exists.   You wouldn't want to read it.


----------



## Zatharus

fmw:

Please forgive me as my objective has apparently not been clear.  This has gotten well out of hand and beyond the original scope of the thread and most likely this forum's audience.

I do see that we are coming from different perspectives and professional experiences on this.  I have also stated several times that I agree with you on the audibility factor.  What I had intended to correct/contest was the insistence that subjective tests prove an end all means of defining quality and the direct nay saying that DAC quality has no effect at all.  Such sweeping generalizations are what raise my incredulity.

I realize you feel very strongly about this and are convinced that there is no need to pay for extremely precise audio equipment since the benifits observed by you and your test subjects is negligable.  That is fine, and I do not begrudge you that choice.  I also tend to be quite picky about my professional gear due to my background as an audio engineer and instructor.  My justifications come from my own subjective experiences and extensive research into the electronics involved.

Please excuse me if my tenacity comes off as a harsh opposition.  I completely understand that we have entered the realm of comparing apples and oranges here.  All said, I am genuinely interested in hearing the details of the tests you have conducted and continuing a similar discourse in private.


----------



## realmike15

on a side note, i'm happy to see so many Pro Audio enthusiasts on these boards.  you don't see much discussion here about it, nice to see some familiar interests.


----------



## Okedokey

So after all the pro wank, is he to get a dedicated card or not?

Answer, yes.


----------



## Bacon

bigfellla said:


> So after all the pro wank, is he to get a dedicated card or not?
> 
> Answer, yes.



Thank you, lol.


----------



## Aastii

Could a soundcard give higher fram rates in games?

I ask this because if you have a game and have no sound on, it has higher FPS than the game with because you need to process less. If you have a sound card, will that process the sound alongside or instead of the CPU and share or take the load from it? I've never really looked into sound cards because i ahve always thought they are just a gimmick so know very little about em, o if this is an obvious question, sorry


----------



## Zatharus

Aastii said:


> Could a soundcard give higher fram rates in games?




In many cases, yes, because the sound card offloads the processing and mixing of the audio from the CPU.  There is still some work for the CPU to do, but the sound card takes most of it.


----------

