Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [xbitlabs] AMD: We Are On Track With Steamroller Micro-Architecture in 2013.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[xbitlabs] AMD: We Are On Track With Steamroller Micro-Architecture in 2013. - Page 59  

post #581 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomboy View Post



Which leads me back to my original statement, hardware manufacturers have no intentions of creating the common DAC/DSP in a way that makes one "better" than the other in any huge way. The argument was motherboard pricing, when we got into audio and you saying how that affects pricing. As to where I said yes, it does as it's a feature and I look to see if a board has 7.1/5.1 ect... That's when I skewed the 5.1/2.0 thing in which I ment to say if features are the same (such as 5.1 or 2.0) the chips should sound the same. With reasonable margins of error, in which one chip might sound lesser than another. Since it's going to fall into a margin of error, I'm not going to say that motherboard used a better audio chipset. So it's not really a feature that raises price, with the exception of a chip supporting 7.1/5.1 and so forth.

imacs and macbooks have very quality on-board sound cards, so it's obviously at least possible to create a nice on board card. granted those are the only quality on-board cards i've ever heard, but i'm sure others exist. the fact that most mp3 players blow a lot of on-board sound cards out of the water suggests spending slightly more on on-board sound is probably worth it, even if the quality isn't production quality. either way, woo 10 bucks more on a motherboard, not really a huge percentage of total system cost
Edited by perfectblade - 4/6/13 at 12:48pm
post #582 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectblade View Post

imacs and macbooks have very quality on-board sound cards, so it's obviously at least possible to create a nice on board card. granted those are the only quality on-board cards i've ever heard, but i'm sure others exist. the fact that most mp3 players blow a lot of on-board sound cards out of the water suggests spending slightly more on on-board sound is probably worth it, even if the quality isn't production quality. either way, woo 10 bucks more on a motherboard, not really a huge percentage of total system cost

right, and I'd agree they have good sound. It's just you pay a premium for that, which I call the "enthusiast" premium. Things like MP3 players today use a lot more than what you find in most onboard audio. New gen stuff is drastically different than old gen. As for spending an extra $10, might as well spend an extra $20 and get a dedicated card that's going to be oodles more than your onboard. So if that's the case, what's the point in a manufacturer puttin in that extra money when the consumer gets something even better for the price increase in the end? It's a worthless battle, with few exceptions. You can probably even find new sound cards for an extra $15, maybe even $10 itself. When products like that become cheaper, it gives less incentive for onboard solutions to get better.
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
post #583 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by looniam View Post

first of all, i have been an audio engineer for live music events for 8 years and to say 5.1 and 2.0 are or to even equate them as having the same features is complete ignorance and also SNR, the most important quality of an audio chip, is very pertinent. obviously you seem to be the type that considers mp3s as acceptable sound quality and wouldn't know. also most "mastering studios" i have walked into work in 24 bit depth because it is much closer to analogue sound than 16 bit depth. it is only when buring a CD that is in 16 bit depth. but for recording and editing 24 bit is much much better. just as working with images, it is better to edit with the most information available before "down sizing" to "published size."

i don't have to talk to anyone, even gaming with a decent pair of headphones will tell the difference -

just stop right now. you need to pull your head out of your anus before you have any right to point at anyone and call them ignorant, a moron, a dick or heretic.

I don't even know where to start with this one. I could care less what the SNR or THD of a chip is. The most important thing is how the chip is implemented in the design. It is beyond me how you could be an audio engineer for 8 years and not even know the most basic of concepts. Don't even get started on mp3's. You should know what matters more is how the music was recorded. A good recording compressed to 320kbps will sound better than a terrible non compressed recording, that's just fact.

As for the 24 bit vs. 16 bit I have to disagree to an extent. I have heard some 24 bit recordings and sure they sound nice. But the most analogue sound I have heard to date is from a 16 bit dac. An extremely simple designed 16 bit dac might I add. It's sound is nearly indistinguishable from my PT turntable. Theoretically, 24 bit should sound better than 16 bit but I haven't found that to be the case yet. I have a fairly good understanding of audio design and recording. But editing is where my understanding is limited so let me ask. When you talk about recording and editing before down sizing to published size...Do you mean that those studios are recording in 24 bit and then down sizing to 16 bit? This just doesn't make sense to me. Why not keep it at 24 bit?
post #584 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2010rig View Post

This has got to be the most TL;DR Off Topic discussion EVER on OCN.

Let me remind you guys of the Thread Title.

AMD: We Are On Track With Steamroller Micro-Architecture in 2013
what's your point.? tongue.gif
post #585 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by looniam View Post

so you're telling me that because you have a friend who owns a studio that you know how to operate it? or a friend who is a DJ that you know how to DJ? or that you may have pushed around a few amp racks that you know how to operate those? yeah, i got a friend who owns a law practice so that makes me qualified to speak and give an opinion about constitutional law . . . rolleyes.gif
dude get a grip, you can't get back whatever quality/information you threw out by converting the audio file to 16 bit. same thing with an image file; take a 300-dpi image and zoom to 300%. downsize that to 75dpi and then back to 300dpi. when you zoom that back to 300% you'll see a bunch of pixelation that wasn't there before because of the information thrown out. that is the same as saying you can watch a 720p video and full screened on a 1080p monitor will be a 1080p movie. thats way i told you you're wrong in saying master recordings are 16 bit. 24 bit has a lot more headroom and dynamics to work with/ listen to.
okay have it your way, loudness helps the perception but when there is a lower quality audio DAC you will hear more garbage. if you just sit there and only listen to low quality garbage, well i see what your saying, because you're increasing the noise it blocking you from perceiving the differences you would when the volume is lower. i have no idea how to explain it any simpler than that.
i really am past the point of giving a crap - sure have it your way again. thumb.gif two thumps up thumb.gif at the wiki reference instead of maybe going to a medical body of knowledge for that. btw, maybe you ought to let them (wiki) know that its HEARD and not HERD.
easy breezy, i just asked some questions as to what your motivation is not conjuring anything for my mental health. we can go back in the history on the thread and see who decided to make a mountain out of the molehill as far as an onboard DAC chip. now if you really believe my mental sanity is in question and i conjure up things; along with being a dick, moron, a baby and pedantic, (excuse me if i missed a few things) why are you still replying??

- I didn't say I know how a studio works, I just said I know what format the public gets. Which isn't the same thing, again your assuming I mean something else. Whatev

- I know what lost data means. That doesn't stop companies from pushing high quality sound that originally came from a low quality format, that's the point. It's been known to happen, time and time again. I've acknowledge they have higher quality sources, when didn't I?

- The loudness concept is close. another way of thinking about it is the brain can only handle data of a certain size. Even though the audio doesn't change, increased decibles increase the "data" that pipes to your brain. Think of it as throttling, the unfortunate side effect is that lost data gets re-constructed by your brain. We have actual proof of concept tests you can do at home, ever herd of the blind spot? Your brain actively alters perception and reality when it cannot get the full amount of data. This happens whether or not your brain is actively blocking informaiton, on the cases it does you can assume without a doubt what you are currently perceiving is partly imaginary.

- My bad for having a grammar error, you want me to go through your posts and point out the same faults? I don't think that matters, it's just a low jab you are trying to make. Nice try though. At least now you understand that the ringing is an understood concept with a term coined to it. Good job.

- As for replying, when you don't have a job filling the time becomes pretty fundamental. I can only game so long, play guitar so long, write/draw so long. Watch so many TV shows, movies, ect... Eventually things need to be changed up a bit, so you'll see me on here to pass the time.

[edit]
Quote:
Originally Posted by computerparts View Post

Do you mean that those studios are recording in 24 bit and then down sizing to 16 bit? This just doesn't make sense to me. Why not keep it at 24 bit?

Yeah that sums it it up. Their are multiple reasons not to keep it, all of them money related. If you have to press CDs that would mean another conversion to 16bit audio. If your track isn't set up that way, the artist could argue that the company pressing the CDs botched the compression or something. So the studio makes the format equal to what the pressed CD is. If you are already going to press CDs and make a 16bit audio, why keep two tracks? Ditch the 24bit track, saves space which equals money. At that point, why even make a 24bit track? Who is going to tell the difference? Needless to say audio tracks have been around for ages, 24bit sound has been around for ages. So far, 16bit audio tracks in the music industry seems to do well. Why change what works? DVDs and other types of audio come in 24bit, because traditionally it's been done that way.

Things are probably changing, more studios moving to higher quality music but I doubt the change is going to be that quick. MP3s still sell like hot cakes and sound "fine" to the average person at 16bit so..... Again, why change what works?
Edited by mushroomboy - 4/6/13 at 2:11pm
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
Current Rig
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8350 4.6GHz@1.44v GA-990FXA-UD3 R4.0 HD 7950 (1100/1450) 8G Muskin DDR3 1866@8CLS 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1TB WD LiteOn DVD-RW DL Linux/Windows 19" Phillips TV 1080p 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
OCZ 600W Generic Junk Logitech MX400 Generic Junk 
Audio
SBL 5.1 
  hide details  
post #586 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by computerparts View Post



As for the 24 bit vs. 16 bit I have to disagree to an extent. I have heard some 24 bit recordings and sure they sound nice. But the most analogue sound I have heard to date is from a 16 bit dac. An extremely simple designed 16 bit dac might I add. It's sound is nearly indistinguishable from my PT turntable. Theoretically, 24 bit should sound better than 16 bit but I haven't found that to be the case yet. I have a fairly good understanding of audio design and recording. But editing is where my understanding is limited so let me ask. When you talk about recording and editing before down sizing to published size...

you're going to tell him he has no clue what he is talking about then declare that "turntables sound better than digital." you realize that this is an audiophile myth that any professional or just anyone knowledgeable about the science of sound will laugh about. the only reason some records sound better is due to the fact they are mastered better. it is an inferior tech, heck analogue in general is inferior. the only exception master tapes still sometimes used in...mastering stuff

Quote:
Do you mean that those studios are recording in 24 bit and then down sizing to 16 bit? This just doesn't make sense to me. Why not keep it at 24 bit?

because humans cannot detect the difference between 24 and 16. yet it is useful for mastering, i can't remember why though
Edited by perfectblade - 4/6/13 at 2:13pm
post #587 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3st3r View Post

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=5

3770k stock - 22.90

4.6 overclocked FX - 31.65


That's great and all except I'm talking about the C-ray bench which I posted a pic of not the Dolfyn bench.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=9
post #588 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by computerparts View Post

I don't even know where to start with this one. I could care less what the SNR or THD of a chip is. The most important thing is how the chip is implemented in the design. It is beyond me how you could be an audio engineer for 8 years and not even know the most basic of concepts. Don't even get started on mp3's. You should know what matters more is how the music was recorded. A good recording compressed to 320kbps will sound better than a terrible non compressed recording, that's just fact.

As for the 24 bit vs. 16 bit I have to disagree to an extent. I have heard some 24 bit recordings and sure they sound nice. But the most analogue sound I have heard to date is from a 16 bit dac. An extremely simple designed 16 bit dac might I add. It's sound is nearly indistinguishable from my PT turntable. Theoretically, 24 bit should sound better than 16 bit but I haven't found that to be the case yet. I have a fairly good understanding of audio design and recording. But editing is where my understanding is limited so let me ask. When you talk about recording and editing before down sizing to published size...Do you mean that those studios are recording in 24 bit and then down sizing to 16 bit? This just doesn't make sense to me. Why not keep it at 24 bit?

you may not care but a lower SNR chip will have better quality. the higher the signal is in ratio to noise will mean what you heard will have a "cleaner sound" because there is less noise. now if i remember my facts right, electrical current will introduce noise. a lower SNR will allow more of that noise in than a chip with a higher SNR. now i am going to say in all fairness what is being (hopefully now was) discussed is playback. sure the quality of the recorded sound will have a result in the playback. a shure SM-58 beta's quality will be much better than anything you can buy at radioshack.

without saying anything about you; if you are use to listening to 16 bit from analog then it would be hard to discern the difference to 24 bit. and no offense to your gear but that numark turntable is pretty much a digital setup; so you sure what DAC it has? also, what are you listening to? the major difference between 16 to 24 bit depth is the dynamic range. listening to country or some rock and roll wouldn't have distinguishment as listening an orchestra. the files get converted to 16bit from 24bit simply because of the file size is half the amount. as to exactly why(?) whomever was in the decision making process decided smaller was more cost effective to distribute than bigger. ( i'm pointing to sony on that one)
Edited by looniam - 4/6/13 at 2:41pm
loon 3.2
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3770K Asus P8Z77-V Pro EVGA 980TI SC+ 16Gb PNY ddr3 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
PNY 1311 240Gb 1 TB Seagate 3 TB WD Blue DVD DVDRW+/- 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EKWB P280 kit EK-VGA supremacy Win X LG 24MC57HQ-P 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Zero [blues] EVGA SuperNova 750 G2 Stryker M [hammered and drilled] corsair M65 
AudioAudio
SB Recon3D Klipsch ProMedia 2.1  
  hide details  
loon 3.2
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3770K Asus P8Z77-V Pro EVGA 980TI SC+ 16Gb PNY ddr3 1866 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
PNY 1311 240Gb 1 TB Seagate 3 TB WD Blue DVD DVDRW+/- 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EKWB P280 kit EK-VGA supremacy Win X LG 24MC57HQ-P 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Zero [blues] EVGA SuperNova 750 G2 Stryker M [hammered and drilled] corsair M65 
AudioAudio
SB Recon3D Klipsch ProMedia 2.1  
  hide details  
post #589 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectblade View Post

you're going to tell him he has no clue what he is talking about then declare that "turntables sound better than digital." you realize that this is an audiophile myth that any professional or just anyone knowledgeable about the science of sound will laugh about. the only reason some records sound better is due to the fact they are mastered better. it is an inferior tech, heck analogue in general is inferior. the only exception master tapes still sometimes used in...mastering stuff
because humans cannot detect the difference between 24 and 16. yet it is useful for mastering, i can't remember why though

That is purely subjective and will depend on the person and their experience. In my experience, turntables in general do sound better than most of the digital garbage out there. Bad recording exist on both analogue and and digital alike. However I find that in general a good recording sounds better on a turntable than the same quality recording in digital with only few exceptions. Most of those guys knowledgeable about the science of sound as you put it are oblivious to the fact that there are aspects to a sound wave which we do not have the technology to measure. To those guys, the only thing that matters is what's listed on the specs of equipment.
post #590 of 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by computerparts View Post

Most of those guys knowledgeable about the science of sound as you put it are oblivious to the fact that there are aspects to a sound wave which we do not have the technology to measure. To those guys, the only thing that matters is what's listed on the specs of equipment.

when there is basically unified professional and scientific consensus about something, it's not really a matter of opinion. you might as well be arguing the earth is flat.

i'm not saying you can't prefer analogue sound, because it definitely does sound different. but it is less accurate
Edited by perfectblade - 4/6/13 at 3:02pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [xbitlabs] AMD: We Are On Track With Steamroller Micro-Architecture in 2013.