Overclock.net banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Nvidia Enthusiast
Joined
·
9,986 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was messing around with my sound card and the Onboard audio and i noticed my X-Fi card only does 24-bit 96Khz but my onboard does 24-bit 192Khz, Doesnt that mean its better? I also have a question about my HyperX cloud 2's i dont notice any difference in quality between my onboard or my X-Fi on any audio setting they all sound the same to me even with a bunch of FLAC music i ripped off a CD and im not tone deaf because i tested that. Is my headset just junk or is it something else?
 

·
Overclock Failed...
Joined
·
13,565 Posts
Two points:
Irregardless of the format and bit depth, a sound file can only sound as good as the original analogue recording. Nothing in the "recording chain" (live performance to your ears) can make the original sound better, though everything in the path has the possibility of making it sound less worse!.

A 16 bit 44 kHz CD ripped at 24 bits 192 kHz. won't sound any better that the original CD. And at any bit rate the sound quality depends much more on the original, analogue, recording's fidelity and post production engineering than on the bit rate used for the final product. There are great sounding 16/44 CDs and there are poor sounding 16/44 CDs. "Up scaling" the poor sounding ones to 24/192 won't make then sound any better!

As for your headphones, and the rest of your audio system, you will only hear differences if your equipment will play those differences. If you play a ripped 16/44 file and a "remastered" 24/192 file, both from the same original analogue "master", and can't hear a difference it's because you equipment won't play that difference. That's not to say that the remaster may have more base and/or treble and a flatter frequency response, which it may, but that subtle differences, like a better sound stage and truer instrument "timber" may not be discernible. When a drummer hits a drum there are two sounds. The sound of the pressure wave coming out the bottom of the drum and the sound of the stick hitting the skin - both are present with a "good" recording, but your equipment may not "play" the latter.

...I hope that helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by philhalo66 View Post

I was messing around with my sound card and the Onboard audio and i noticed my X-Fi card only does 24-bit 96Khz but my onboard does 24-bit 192Khz, Doesnt that mean its better? I also have a question about my HyperX cloud 2's i dont notice any difference in quality between my onboard or my X-Fi on any audio setting they all sound the same to me even with a bunch of FLAC music i ripped off a CD and im not tone deaf because i tested that. Is my headset just junk or is it something else?
Are you using the provided USB Sound card with your HyperX Cloud II? Your window settings will have little to no affect on your audio quality since the USB sound card takes priority over any dedicated or on-board sound card.
 

·
Nvidia Enthusiast
Joined
·
9,986 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Quote:
Originally Posted by billbartuska View Post

Two points:
Irregardless of the format and bit depth, a sound file can only sound as good as the original analogue recording. Nothing in the "recording chain" (live performance to your ears) can make the original sound better, though everything in the path has the possibility of making it sound less worse!.

A 16 bit 44 kHz CD ripped at 24 bits 192 kHz. won't sound any better that the original CD. And at any bit rate the sound quality depends much more on the original, analogue, recording's fidelity and post production engineering than on the bit rate used for the final product. There are great sounding 16/44 CDs and there are poor sounding 16/44 CDs. "Up scaling" the poor sounding ones to 24/192 won't make then sound any better!

As for your headphones, and the rest of your audio system, you will only hear differences if your equipment will play those differences. If you play a ripped 16/44 file and a "remastered" 24/192 file, both from the same original analogue "master", and can't hear a difference it's because you equipment won't play that difference. That's not to say that the remaster may have more base and/or treble and a flatter frequency response, which it may, but that subtle differences, like a better sound stage and truer instrument "timber" may not be discernible. When a drummer hits a drum there are two sounds. The sound of the pressure wave coming out the bottom of the drum and the sound of the stick hitting the skin - both are present with a "good" recording, but your equipment may not "play" the latter.

...I hope that helps.
hmm so my sound equipment is junk as i suspected. i'll probably try and pickup an X-fi Titanium HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperX-Felinni View Post

Are you using the provided USB Sound card with your HyperX Cloud II? Your window settings will have little to no affect on your audio quality since the USB sound card takes priority over any dedicated or on-board sound card.
i did but it sounded like crap plugging it directly into my sound card even my old one from 2001 sounds much much better
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by philhalo66 View Post

hmm so my sound equipment is junk as i suspected. i'll probably try and pickup an X-fi Titanium HD
i did but it sounded like crap plugging it directly into my sound card even my old one from 2001 sounds much much better
That's the thing... audio is very subjective. Our Cloud II was designed as a great portable solution for most. We understand it may not work for everyone due to the difference we all share with taste in music and sound. For those with a finer taste in music I suggest connecting the Clouds to a dedicated sound card for an overall fulfilling experience. You can adjust the settings too!
:thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,479 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by philhalo66 View Post

I was messing around with my sound card and the Onboard audio and i noticed my X-Fi card only does 24-bit 96Khz but my onboard does 24-bit 192Khz, Doesnt that mean its better?
Nope.
If all else is equal, 192Khz is better than 96Khz but that's rarely the situation. In any case, since you say you can't tell a difference between the two you can use whatever you like. If you come across any issues you've got the option to use the other sound device.

Here's my stuff.
Onboard: ALC892 / 7.1ch / 24-bit / 192Khz
SoundCard: Xonar DG / 5.1ch / 24-bit / 96Khz

Ignoring all the gimmicks and nonsense (like effects/EQ/surround emulation) the Xonar DG is noticeably a superior sound card when compared to my onboard.
It's not noticeable to me when playing back music but in some situations it's an absolute night and day difference I simply can't ignore.

If you have it, open up Ventrilo. Click on the setup button, switch to the "events" tab and spam the hell out of the "Play" button to overlap an event sound rapidly.
Here's a picture for reference.
Ird9kmU.png

In my experience here the onboard sounds like garbage. Kind of like it's clipping or sloppily cutting out old sounds to play the newer ones while the Xonar DG does this task flawlessly. This difference is noticeably while using any configuration. For example, the same thing happens even when setting both devices to output at 96Khz/48Khz/44.1Khz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philhalo66 View Post

I also have a question about my HyperX cloud 2's i dont notice any difference in quality between my onboard or my X-Fi on any audio setting they all sound the same to me even with a bunch of FLAC music i ripped off a CD and im not tone deaf because i tested that. Is my headset just junk or is it something else?
I too couldn't recognize a difference between my onboard audio and sound card while playing back music. I tried FLAC and uncompressed .WAVs imported directly from new CDs and they both sounded just fine to my ears. I'm no musician or even somebody with a trained ear, but I just couldn't tell a difference. Maybe that's due to a cheap headset and speakers, whatever. However I can reliably tell the difference between low bitrate audio and high bitrate audio. To me, 320Kbps Mp3s are acceptable and I can't tell most of them apart from FLAC but I can totally tell the difference between 128Kbps MP3s and 320Kbps MP3s.

In theory 192Khz should be superior to 96Khz but if you were even able to notice the difference yourself you would first need a true 192Khz source. If you don't have any, a close second would be to turn on audio effects. When applying an effect to 48Khz audio, the end result can definitely sound a bit cleaner if it's processed at 96Khz or 192Khz. If your onboard sound handles things poorly like mine does above in the Ventrilo example, the importance of the sample rate immediately becomes almost irrelevant. The importance of sampling rate is definitely worth considering, but it's really the last thing you should care about IMO.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top