Need a Soundcard with 5.1 Through Optical

[tk423]

Hey everyone. I have a question about soundcards.

As of right now I have a 5.1 surround sound system and the only way to connect my computer to the surround sound receiver is through a digital optical audio cable. A S/PDIF, I believe?

My current soundcard is an onboard Realtek alc892.

I read that I will only be able to get true 5.1 surround sound through an optical cable (for games or other audio sources that are not already in Dobly or DTS) if I have a soundcard that has Dolby Digital Live and/or DTS Connect. My current soundcard does not have these features, correct?

Is it true I won't be able to get 5.1 with my current card?

Is it necessary to get a soundcard that has both Dolby Digital Live and DTS Connect or is only one necessary?

I don't really know how to find soundcards based on features and you can't really select Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect on the search at Newegg.

What do you believe is the cheapest card I can get that has one or both (whatever is necessary) of these features and will allow me to get true 5.1 sound in my pc gaming?

 

[sk1939]

Yes it is, due to bandwidth limitations. Dolby/DTS are horrid audio formats because of how compressed they are, hence why I always recommend direct analog out whenever possible.

For multichannel I can see that, for straight stereo audio it makes no difference. As far as recommending direct audio out, it depends on the grade of equipment. A true audiophile would have an external DAC, while a home theatre nut would have a surround sound processor, both of which would be better than the DAC on the onboard card. In the OP's case, it depends on what he is connecting to.

 

[sk1939]

First off, as evident in your own post, HDMI is quite a bit different. Secondly I've never heard any one who disapproved of optical argue for coax instead.

I use the analog outputs on my soundcard (only) for the quality limitations inherent in optical and coax as well as the reasons "gamerk316" posted earlier:
I don't need to read the "The latest double blind study" to tell me what my ears hear. Results can be easily skewed to represent a negligible difference or a much greater difference depending on the desired outcome, double blind or not. The importance of that difference can only be judged by the owners of those ears.

For me PC sound quality is of equal importance to CPU quality (maybe more). Even my old dell Dimension 4700 P4 has $600 worth of audio equipment dedicated to it and unlike the 3.8GHz CPU, the audio portion has retained much of it's value.

Sure people like me are in the minority but, no where near the minority that your "latest double blind study" seems to suggest.

Again, for multi-channel yes, for stereo no. Unfortunately I have; it's like the $500 power cord debate.

I use the optical connection on my soundcard simply because I cannot hear the difference between 44.1/16 and 96/24 with purchased from Amazon, or my CD collection, both of which are 44.1/16, you cannot get more out of less. To output 96/24, you have to upconvert the stream, which means adding 0's into the gaps, since you cannot get something out of nothing. If you can hear the difference, great, but I firmly believe it's psychosomatic (your ears "hear" what your mind wants to hear), since the same argument can be had with $500 cables. Equipment cost is meaningless; $600 in gear could mean anything.

 

[gamerk316]

For multichannel I can see that, for straight stereo audio it makes no difference.

*Some* difference. Jitter matters, and as you pointed out, the equipment at the other end of the chain matters as well. At the end of the day, whatever piece of equipment has the best DAC should be handling the analog conversion.

 

[sk1939]

*Some* difference. Jitter matters, and as you pointed out, the equipment at the other end of the chain matters as well. At the end of the day, whatever piece of equipment has the best DAC should be handling the analog conversion.

Indeed. Has the OP abandoned their thread? Has not posted in a while...

 

[douglasw]

Yes it is, due to bandwidth limitations. Dolby/DTS are horrid audio formats because of how compressed they are, hence why I always recommend direct analog out whenever possible.

...You were saying you'd recommend direct analog over Dolby & Dts but with my experience with Analog is a less quality sound iv read many times that dolby or DTS sends a cleaner signal and i can relate to that in analog i get alought of hissing sound then it clears right up in Dolby...Iv even read in my stereo Pamphlet that theres 3 ways to hook up to your Computer under Good better best & Analog was rated good while coaxial cable with Dolby was better and best was optical...No offence my system using analog use to sounded like crap..

 

[douglasw]

Why? Optical is no different than coax or HDMI outputs.

S/PDIF in coax and optical are both strictly two channels of uncompressed PCM audio, but can pass the compressed 5.1/7.1 formats as well. S/PDIF is used to transmit digital signals of a number of formats, including 48 kHz (used to be used in DAT, replaced by AES) and 44.1 kHz (used in Redbook CD's). The format has no strictly defined data rate, and instead uses a biphase code that has either one or two transitions for every bit, allowing the word clock (used for signal pulse timing) to be extracted from the signal itself. Some audiophile and professional equipment allows for an external word clock to be used to synchronize timing and eliminate jitter. Additionally, S/PDIF generally transmits a 20-bit audio data stream plus other related information, however with less than 20 bits, as in the case with Redbook CD's, the extra bits are set to 0. If the source is an SACD player, then S/PDIF can also transport 24-bit samples by way of four extra bits, but the extra may be ignored depending on the DAC used. Additionally, while S/PDIF supports 96/24 output, it makes no difference in practice as most source material is 44.1/16 in the case of MP3's or CD Audio, which makes up the bulk of source material.

As for HDMI, it is required to support S/PDIF, but unlike S/PDIF, HDMI allows 8 channels of uncompressed audio at 16, 20, and 24 bits with a sample range between 44.1 kHz and 192 kHz (used in Blue-Ray, SACD, and DVD-A), as well as the various compressed audio standards. However, due to the limitations of the human ear, it is debatable whether nor not humans can differentiate between 16 and 24 bit audio streams, as well as 48kHz vs 96kHz samples. The latest double blind study I read about found that out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, which meant that there a 49.8% success rate. Given that it was a 50/50 chance to begin with, it shows that the difference, if any, is negligible, however audiophiles and audio equipment manufacturers (of course) contest this, saying there is a difference.

Im guessing with what your saying that the market has hits its limites maybe thats why you dont see a new soundcard come out every year...I have the Ht Omega claro Plus+ and with music its totally amazing to the ear but i was shocked when i found out the card is almost 5 years old and here it is 2012 & i just bought it brand new..

 

[gamerk316]

...You were saying you'd recommend direct analog over Dolby & Dts but with my experience with Analog is a less quality sound iv read many times that dolby or DTS sends a cleaner signal and i can relate to that in analog i get alought of hissing sound then it clears right up in Dolby...Iv even read in my stereo Pamphlet that theres 3 ways to hook up to your Computer under Good better best & Analog was rated good while coaxial cable with Dolby was better and best was optical...No offence my system using analog use to sounded like crap..

...sound is an analog waveform. Whether the soundcard, receiver, or speakers do it, at some point, the digital signal is going to be converted back to analog. Hence why you want the component with the best DAC to be the one that does the conversion.

In addition, Dolby and DTS are lossy audio formats. You lose some degree of audio quality just by using them. So you have a tradeoff the second you use either format. [this is the same reason why I want all h.264 based audio formats to die a horrid death. Wish more stuff was native FLAC these days...]

 

[Idonno]

Again, for multi-channel yes, for stereo no.

You keep underestimating the importance of quality DAC's. And again, what "gamerk316" said.

I use the optical connection on my soundcard simply because I cannot hear the difference between 44.1/16 and 96/24 with purchased from Amazon, or my CD collection, both of which are 44.1/16, you cannot get more out of less. To output 96/24, you have to upconvert the stream, which means adding 0's into the gaps, since you cannot get something out of nothing.

Actually a good up-conversion is much more than that and while most of the time it is audible (for me), it is admittedly minimal and sometimes not even preferable. The source is the first step in a long line of factors and while I certainly do listen to regular CD's I also listen to SACD's as well as many other high quality sources. If you have a PC, an internet connection and a little knowledge the possibility's for high quality sources are almost limitless.

If you can hear the difference, great, but I firmly believe it's psychosomatic (your ears "hear" what your mind wants to hear)

Well, since you can't here the difference it makes perfect sense that you would believe that. However all hearing isn't created equal any more than the level of importance one puts on the quality of anything.

I do have a hard time understanding how an otherwise intelligent individual such as your self could think he has the best hearing in the world and anyone claiming better is just fooling themselves.

since the same argument can be had with $500 cables.

Now this comment I like unfortunately, it's completely wrong. People can here between 20-20,000Hz some a little better and many worse to various degrees and for various reasons. For a really decent quality frequency range the sound should be the same level (measured in decibels) throughout the entire 20-20,000Hz range with as little drop off as possible on either end. This is measurable as are other factors like total harmonic distortion (THD) or signal to noise ratio (SNR).

Your $500 cables also have measurable specifications and much cheaper cables with the same specs are no less worthy for sound quality. If the specifications are greater than the components it's connecting can use, that's equally pointless.

I don't know of one single true audiophile that uses Monster Cable (or similar price to performance ratio cable) those are for the uninformed.

Another important factor is that, while a small difference may not be noticed, lots of small differences often are.

 

[Idonno]

...You were saying you'd recommend direct analog over Dolby & Dts but with my experience with Analog is a less quality sound iv read many times that dolby or DTS sends a cleaner signal and i can relate to that in analog i get alought of hissing sound then it clears right up in Dolby...Iv even read in my stereo Pamphlet that theres 3 ways to hook up to your Computer under Good better best & Analog was rated good while coaxial cable with Dolby was better and best was optical...No offence my system using analog use to sounded like crap..

If the analog sounded worse that was probably due to the hum, hiss or other impurity's that low quality analog cables are prone to. If your just using stereo the SPDIF (optical/coaxial) outputs are (IMHO) a worthwhile trade off but that's up to your own individual tastes.

Another factor that I find that falsely influences people is the amp on most PC speakers seems to assign a higher gain to the SPDIF than what the analog has and many people mistake the louder SPDIF as better. For a better "quality test" adjust the volume to an equal sound level each time.

While SPDIF is not the best connection in many regards, it does have the advantage of not being very prone to outside interference like analog can be. For instance with SPDIF outside interference is not part of the digital information being processed so you won't hear it in your speakers whereas with analog it would probably come through as hum or hiss. This can be managed, it just isn't as trouble free as SPDIF.

So how do you like your "HT Omega Claro Plus+ " nice not having driver issues, isn't it.

 

[sk1939]

I do have a hard time understanding how an otherwise intelligent individual such as your self could think he has the best hearing in the world and anyone claiming better is just fooling themselves.

Fair enough.
Obsession with quantifiable data mostly. I don't have the best hearing (that's for sure) but I do hear over a large frequency range (TV's annoy me, even across the house).

You keep underestimating the importance of quality DAC's. And again, what "gamerk316" said.

DAC's are important yes, but I've never found the best DAC's to be integrated as part of a sound card, there's just too much electrical noise in a PC. Also, most people aren't going to be able to tell the difference anyways since they're probably using Logitech 2.1's or some such.

Actually a good up-conversion is much more than that and while most of the time it is audible (for me), it is admittedly minimal and sometimes not even preferable. The source is the first step in a long line of factors and while I certainly do listen to regular CD's I also listen to SACD's as well as many other high quality sources. If you have a PC, an internet connection and a little knowledge the possibility's for high quality sources are almost limitless.

Audible perhaps, but at your admittance, minimal. I generalized a bit, that was directed not necessarily towards those who know better, but towards those who strictly follow numbers (see that $20 Colby CD player can handle 96/24, so it must be better than that $100 44.1/16 Denon for example). True, .WAV and .FLAC, but the majority of digital songs are still in mp3, .mp4, or .aac format.

Now this comment I like unfortunately, it's completely wrong. People can here between 20-20,000Hz some a little better and many worse to various degrees and for various reasons. For a really decent quality frequency range the sound should be the same level (measured in decibels) throughout the entire 20-20,000Hz range with as little drop off as possible on either end. This is measurable as are other factors like total harmonic distortion (THD) or signal to noise ratio (SNR).

Your $500 cables also have measurable specifications and much cheaper cables with the same specs are no less worthy for sound quality. If the specifications are greater than the components it's connecting can use, that's equally pointless.

I don't know of one single true audiophile that uses Monster Cable (or similar price to performance ratio cable) those are for the uninformed.

Another important factor is that, while a small difference may not be noticed, lots of small differences often are.

Perhaps, but they are minimal improvement at best. Unfortunately I know of far too many people who are self proclaimed "audiophiles" on audiophile forums, who invest $25k into their systems, and then purchase ridiculous things like the $500 power cable (PS Audio for example), $200 outlets (PS Audio), $1000 interconnects (MIT Cables), the ceramic cable risers, etc.

What do you have for components at the moment, out of curiosity?

 

[sk1939]

Im guessing with what your saying that the market has hits its limites maybe thats why you dont see a new soundcard come out every year...I have the Ht Omega claro Plus+ and with music its totally amazing to the ear but i was shocked when i found out the card is almost 5 years old and here it is 2012 & i just bought it brand new..

Yes, like everything there are limits.

 

[Idonno]

What do you have for components at the moment, out of curiosity?

On this computer I have the HT | OMEGA eClaro Sound Card. A Klipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 Multimedia Speaker System W/Upgraded Amp and I replaced the 2 front right & left speakers with Infinity bookshelf speakers and the center speaker with a PSB center channel speaker.

All together including the sound card I have invested about $1200 into this PC's audio. My reasoning was I didn't want a large home entertainment receiver sitting on or near my computer desk in addition to everything that's already there. By audiophile standards it's certainly not top of the line.

I would much rather had the "Blue Sky Sky System One 5.1 System" http://www.sweetwater.com/store/search.php?s=Blue+Sky+5.1&rkg=1&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=vendors&utm_term=blue_sky_51&adpos=1t1&gclid=CKCF2vfi4q8CFQ-ChwodT1LgAA I actually came very close to buying them but, @ $5,599 and after just finishing this fairly expensive build I decided to wait. And now that I've upgraded this sound system to suit my needs it might just be on permanent hold. We'll see.

 

[sk1939]

On this computer I have the HT | OMEGA eClaro Sound Card. A Klipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 Multimedia Speaker System W/Upgraded Amp and I replaced the 2 front right & left speakers with Infinity bookshelf speakers and the center speaker with a PSB center channel speaker.

All together including the sound card I have invested about $1200 into this PC's audio. My reasoning was I didn't want a large home entertainment receiver sitting on or near my computer desk in addition to everything that's already there. By audiophile standards it's certainly not top of the line.

I would much rather had the "Blue Sky Sky System One 5.1 System" http://www.sweetwater.com/store/search.php?s=Blue+Sky+5.1&rkg=1&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_campaign=vendors&utm_term=blue_sky_51&adpos=1t1&gclid=CKCF2vfi4q8CFQ-ChwodT1LgAA I actually came very close to buying them but, @ $5,599 and after just finishing this fairly expensive build I decided to wait. And now that I've upgraded this sound system to suit my needs it might just be on permanent hold. We'll see.

I was looking at the eClaro, but have never gotten around to buying it (in addition to the fact that I have no open slots), so I'm still using the built in (cringe) SoundMAX with an external DAC (only have 2 channels anyways). Interesting combination you have there, why 5.1 channel though (for the games/movies?). I can see that, although I personally would not buy them online. Speakers are one of those things that are so subjective you have to really hear them in person to get a good feel for them I believe (much like monitors).

 

[Idonno]

I was looking at the eClaro, but have never gotten around to buying it (in addition to the fact that I have no open slots), so I'm still using the built in (cringe) SoundMAX with an external DAC (only have 2 channels anyways). Interesting combination you have there, why 5.1 channel though (for the games/movies?)

Yes the eClaro is a decent card. I'm quite happy with it and HT Omega cards don't seem to have all the driver issues that plague many other manufacturers to varying degrees.

One trend in the sound card industry that I don't like is their tendency to categorize users into groups and produce cards accordingly. This didn't seem to be quite so much the case 10yrs ago when my x-Fi fatality Pro extreme gamer had everything the extreme music had with the addition of x-ram and it could still link to the large I/O console geared 100% towards the audiophile and not necessarily the gamer. At the time it was truly the best of both worlds.

Now it seems almost all the PCIe audiophile grade cards have only stereo analog outputs. I think it's wrong to assume that just because someone likes to listen to quality music they wouldn't also like to watch a movie or play a game in 5.1 surround.

A lot of home theater receiver manufacturers realize this simple concept so why is it that sound card manufacturers don't.

 

[gamerk316]

Now it seems almost all the PCIe audiophile grade cards have only stereo analog outputs. I think it's wrong to assume that just because someone likes to listen to quality music they wouldn't also like to watch a movie or play a game in 5.1 surround.

Different markets. Cards like the STX and Titanium HD are focused directly at audiophiles. Cards like the Xense, the Titanium, and the like are geared more toward gamers.

 

[sk1939]

Yes the eClaro is a decent card. I'm quite happy with it and HT Omega cards don't seem to have all the driver issues that plague many other manufacturers to varying degrees.

One trend in the sound card industry that I don't like is their tendency to categorize users into groups and produce cards accordingly. This didn't seem to be quite so much the case 10yrs ago when my x-Fi fatality Pro extreme gamer had everything the extreme music had with the addition of x-ram and it could still link to the large I/O console geared 100% towards the audiophile and not necessarily the gamer. At the time it was truly the best of both worlds.

Now it seems almost all the PCIe audiophile grade cards have only stereo analog outputs. I think it's wrong to assume that just because someone likes to listen to quality music they wouldn't also like to watch a movie or play a game in 5.1 surround.

A lot of home theater receiver manufacturers realize this simple concept so why is it that sound card manufacturers don't.

Driver stability is nice, something sorely lacking with AMD at the moment.

Well they're trying to appeal to different markets. Most gamer's don't have a use for 2 channel audio (according to the manufactures anyways), and most audiophiles don't care for 5.1 channel audio (mostly true actually). I still have an Xtrememusic somewhere, but got the console for it. It also has to do with the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" which is what happens to a lot of receivers until you move into the high end range.

 

[Idonno]

most audiophiles don't care for 5.1 channel audio (mostly true actually).

While I agree with that statement if I take it at face value, I also think most audiophiles would prefer 5.1 for games or movies. Which was kind of the point of my last post.

Driver stability is nice, something sorely lacking with AMD at the moment.

unfortunately, we are in total agreement here! CCC 12.4 has issues.